Does originality exist?

I ask this question because I have noticed a curious phenomenon: some people make a point of claiming, online, that originality does not exist. I have seen this many times. Sometimes, they then go on to extol the virtues of finding ideas in the works of others. They seem to think that this is the only way to find ideas. Typically, they then generalize what they do – find ideas in others’ works – and state their strong belief, that that is what everyone does. Therefore, they conclude, originality does not exist. They even sometimes mock the idea of the concept, as if those who believe in originality are being naive or uninformed.

I find all this very odd. It is most obvious what is happening here. Those who do not believe in originality do not do so, precisely because they realize that they, themselves, are not original. They then, in a rather odd leap, conclude that since they are not original, and develop everything from borrowed ideas – that everyone else must do the same – hence their conclusion that originality does not exist. People see the world as they are themselves. Yet, the world is not like us. The world consists of billions of different people, each of whom is unlike us. It makes no sense to generalize across this mass of others, and believe – as they do – that everyone has the same process for creation.

I look at the world in a different way. I believe in originality because I have known the phenomenon personally, in my own life and in the lives of people known to me. I know original people. I see their thoughts and their works and know, for a fact, that they came from themselves. I know, too, however, that such people are a minority. Most people who “create” are actually DERIVING their works through imitation of others. So, some are original, but most are not.

It is a toxic belief, however, that people should think that originality does not exist. This prevents us from appreciating the original souls among us. Their works would tend to be dismissed as “plagiarized from sources unknown” – rather than actually created by an original spirit. That is a very sad and corrupting way to look at the world and work of creative people.

Luckily, it is fairly easy to recognize genuine creatives. They are driven from within, by ideas that bubble up in them; they have passion and drive – they speak in surprising ways and say things one has never heard before. So, too, is it easy to recognize the unoriginal derivers and imitators. They speak of their “influences”. They talk of the ideas they got from reading/listening/meeting/seeing others. Always are the ideas from without themselves...never do they appear within. They also tend to dismiss the originality of others, seemingly assuming them to be as they are: imitative. It doesn’t take long listening to and observing a “creative” person, to decide which of these two types they are from: those who create original works and those who echo, others.

The sad part about this is that true creators are vastly outnumbered by the imitators and derivers. This gives the incorrect impression to some, that to steal the thoughts of others, is the common procedure of all “creators”. It is not so. Genuine creators create, from their own thoughts and understandings of the world. However, those who talk loudest of their creations and are often the most famous for them, are, too often, of the thievish kind and simply echo the works of others, endlessly.

Originality does exist. It just doesn’t exist in those who claim it doesn’t exist. 

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.) 

Lack of creativity in adults.

Yesterday, Fintan, eight, was listening to the radio. There was a song playing which caught his attention.

“Mummy, was that song made by a kid, or an adult?”. Genuine puzzlement had settled in his eyes and inflected his tongue.

His mother, Syahidah gazed down upon him, knowing the answer, but wondering how there could be any doubt.

Fintan explained. “They keep repeating the words.” It was clear he thought this both silly and evidence of an undeveloped mind.

“It is by an adult.”, she assured him, a little unimpressed herself that it should be so.

Fintan didn’t know what to make of that. It seemed that he didn’t believe it worthy of a child, never mind an adult.

She didn’t explain to him further about the parlous state of modern culture – about how many “artists” produce trite and empty work. Perhaps she should have done.

It is interesting, however, that a young child of only eight was able to identify the essential emptiness of a song that had too much repetition in it. He already expected more from a song – more complexity, more variety, more of a story than this particular “artiste” was able to give. This, of course, prompts the question: if a young boy can see modern music as lacking, how can the adult audience not do so as well? Why is there even a market for such trivial “music”?

In moments like this, it is becoming apparent that Fintan is growing in awareness of the mental and cultural limitations of the modern adult world. He is beginning to see a mismatch between his expectations of that world and what it actually is and delivers. It is both telling and somewhat sad, that even an eight year old boy can expect greater quality and complexity from the adult world than it is able, in this instance, at least, to offer. In his innocent question, there lies a potent criticism of the state of modern music , in particular, and modern culture in general. It has degenerated to the point that even a young boy sees that something is missing. That something, of course, is intelligence and creativity. Once, one might have expected it in the typical cultural product, now, however, it has become a rarity. In its stead, we have derivativeness, “sampling”/plagiarism, simplicity to the point of banality, and a general sense of stupidity, in the “creator”. Even a child can sense it and wonder why it is so.

I hope that the future is better than the present, culturally, because much that is modern seems to have declined from the past. I hope that this decline does not continue and that the future holds music and other culture that children won’t puzzle at, that an adult could possibly have produced it. However, looking around, there is not much hope for the near future. It may be a distant future, before human culture recovers the complexity, depth and originality it once had – at least, in terms of popular expressions in any media. Right now, much of the work can be described by one word: mindless. Even a child can see that - or hear it, anyway.

Posted by Valentine Cawley

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Singapore's Intellectual Class.

Anyone who knows Singapore well will wonder how on Earth I could have written a title like "Singapore's Intellectual Class." Singapore doesn't really have an intellectual class...or if it does, those intellectuals were never in my class (when I taught).

Singapore's education system doesn't produce intellectuals, in my view of what an intellectual is. Singapore's "top students", are very good at passing exams and in telling you what the world already knows. However, what they are not good at...in fact, are hopeless at, is in telling you something you don't know. In other words, they are useless at independent, creative thinking. In other words, they are not truly intellectuals at all.

Now, I am not going to lay blame at the foot of Singaporeans for this. You see, it is difficult to know the cause of this lack of intellectual calibre. Is it genetic? Or is it the fact that the education system requires and trains parrots? Are they parrots by nature or parrots by nurture? I am not going to answer the question here. However, I will say this: I don't think that Singapore will ever have a truly intellectual class. There is too much momentum there, in the way things are done. Singapore will not change until it has died as a nation. Then, perhaps, something new will come of it.

Of course, there is, perhaps, a good reason why Singapore does not have a home grown intellectual class: intellectuals think - and this singularly single party state has never encouraged its people to do that. There is nothing more threatening to a monolithic state than someone able to think of alternatives. Thus it is that true thinkers are not only not found, in Singapore, but not desired, either. A true thinker is the last kind of person Singapore wants.

Given these considerations, I found it most interesting what Lee Kuan Yew had to say on the matter (for those who don't know...which is much of the outside world...Lee Kuan Yew is modern Singapore's iconic "founder" and lifelong effective leader). I say "founder" because, actually, Singapore was founded by the Brit, Sir Stamford Raffles, long ago, though Lee Kuan Yew took it in a different direction.

Lee Kuan Yew recently called for the import of an "intellectual class", specifically from China and India. He stated that this class would be three times larger than the present intellectual class. (Yes. I know. Three times zero is still zero.) He envisaged this intellectual class as being leaders in their fields and as bringing greater wealth to Singapore. This should not be much of a surprise, since wealth or "economic growth" is actually the sole consideration of Singapore's leadership. He then went on to disparage the Malays, by saying that immigrants from Malaysia were "not so bright" and that they only came to Singapore because it provided them with opportunities not found at home.

So, Lee Kuan Yew wants to increase the number of PRCs in Singapore despite the fact that it is already overflowing with them - and to specifically exclude Malaysians from this drive for an "intellectual class". Again, this is not surprising to anyone who has followed Lee Kuan Yew's past pronouncements, quite a few of which involve disparaging one race or another, directly or indirectly.

To my eyes, it is very revealing that Chinese and Indian "intellectuals" should be required and not those from elsewhere. You see, I don't think that such immigrants would be likely to "rock the boat". They are likely to be good little workers, who don't cause any kind of trouble at all. They will tend to keep their opinions to themselves, if they have any. They will just get on with their jobs, in a diligent fashion. As far as being an effective "intellectual class" that is just about the last thing they will be. China, for instance, is not famous for its intellectual class. China is about as good at making intellectuals as Singapore is. They create pretty much the same kind of hardworking, but not at all creative or independently thinking people, as Singapore does. Thus, in importing an intellectual class consisting of said "intellectuals", Singapore can hope to have a greater concentration of what it already has: hardworking, unthinking, servants of the state.

The big, unstated question, here, of course, is why Singapore feels a need to import an intellectual class at all. What happened to its own? Why can't Singapore make its own intellectuals? After all, every other country (apart, perhaps, from China...) does...

The answer, it seems, from our own experience of life in Singapore, is that Singapore does not WANT a homegrown intellectual class. It does not want a class of people with two attributes: 1) able to think for themselves 2) know Singapore well. The combination of those two attributes leads to the possibility of CHANGE...and CHANGE is what the arthritic system of the Singaporean state resists mightily.

What does Singapore do to its potential intellectual class? Well, I can only answer, from personal experience, about what it does to non-Chinese potential intellectuals. My eldest son is half-Malay...he is also Singapore's most gifted young scientist - or was, until he left. I say "most gifted young scientist", since there is no other candidate of his age, with his achievements, in Singapore...or elsewhere for that matter. Now, you would have thought that a country seeking to build an "intellectual class" would have looked after him well? But no...we faced opposition, every step of the way, in seeking a suitable education for him. What was offered by the Gifted Branch was pure tokenism - an attempt to make it look like they were doing something, whilst they actually did everything they could to delay his progress. It was immensely frustrating dealing with them. Then again, when we made our own arrangements, and progressed without their "help"...Singapore's media began to tell lies about our son, to attempt to diminish him and so, perhaps, spare themselves the embarrassment of what they had (not) done. I only hope that Singaporean readers are not so naive as to swallow what their mainstream media say without reflecting on it, themselves.

Anyway, how are we to interpret this? It does seem that Singapore certainly doesn't want a MALAY intellectual of any kind, to thrive. If it had wanted a Malay intellectual to thrive, it would have been more responsive where Ainan was concerned. No. Singapore wants its intellectuals to be non-Malay - even if that means having to import them.

Then again, there is my own experience of Singapore. I am a very creative person...but in Singapore that creativity was not best deployed. At no time, was I given an opportunity, there, to create in the way that I can, so easily. Instead, my energies were directed towards teaching students who would never, in a trillion years, ever possess one quark of my creativity. It was laughable. What kind of moronic nation cries out for an "intellectual class" - but then fails to recognize or value intellectuals within its own borders? It is hilarious, in its fundamental stupidity.

If Singapore really wants an intellectual class, it should have done everything necessary to allow Ainan to flourish. It should also have made available, to me, a position in which I could be free to think and create. It should also have repeated those steps, however many times are necessary, to accommodate all potential intellectuals - and actual intellectuals - within its borders. Were it to do so, there would be no need to import an intellectual class, because one would already have been fostered within it.

It seems, however, that both Ainan and I are the wrong race, to have been invited to participate in Singapore's "intellectual class". Neither of us is from China or India, after all. One of us even has those dreaded Malay genes...so God forbid however could he be an intellectual?

Yet, we are intellectuals. Singapore's failure to value that fact doesn't change it. The funny thing is that we are establishing ourselves as intellectuals in Malaysia, the country that Lee Kuan Yew disparaged so, in his recent speech. Here, we are valued. Ainan is being allowed to grow, intellectually - and I am working creatively as a research scientist. So, all is turning out well for us.

The question, now, of course is: how will it turn out for Singapore? Will its imported "intellectual class" actually be intellectual? Will the people of Singapore support this renewed influx of outsiders? Will these "intellectuals" actually come from China and India...after all, China is booming and India is growing fast, too...so for how long will Singapore seem an attractive prospect?

From here, in KL, the whole situation looks rather funny. You see, Singapore would already have an intellectual class, if only it had looked after its own people and their families. What kind of country so singularly fails to nurture the minds of its own people that it needs to import them, wholesale, from overseas to make up the lack?

Singapore is the kind of country that smart people leave...like we did.

(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.)

Mika: The Boy Who Knew Too Much

Mika is, apparently, a singer. His second album is now entitled: "The Boy Who Knew Too Much." Personally, I find this irksome, for reasons which should be obvious.

I shall explain.

Someone arrived on my blog, today, searching for "Mika The Boy Who Knew Too Much"...so, naturally, I did a search, myself, on Google, to find out just who this Mika was - since I had never heard of him, before. It turned out that Mika who was born Michael Holbrook Penniman, is a 26 year old singer in the early stages of his career (he didn't come to notice until 2007). It also turns out that his second album is called: "The Boy Who Knew Too Much".

Now, I find this galling for two reasons. Firstly, it is not the original name for the album. The album was meant to be called: "We are golden", after the first track on the album. Something prompted him to change the name, recently - something which may, very well, be my blog. Secondly, I was irritated to find much praise, on his fan site, for the "originality" of his title...some of the commenters were going overboard on how "original" this Mika fellow is. Well, I don't see originality, in this particular instance...I see that my blog started before Mika's entire career.

I have never heard a Mika song. I don't know if he is much good. I know this, however: this boy, Mika, only knows enough to take his titles from elsewhere. Imitating a blog title does not constitute an act of originality, despite what his fans think.

On another note, however, it is interesting to see how the phrase: "The Boy Who Knew Too Much" is becoming much more frequently used since I started this blog. The phrase was used, after Michael Jackson's death, in an article by Ann Powers of the Los Angeles Times. The same phrase was actually the title of the reprint of that article in The Age, Australia. Independent origination of the phrase is possible, but I think it is more likely that it was the influence of my blog that prompted the use in this article for one good reason: I actually wrote a couple of posts about Michael Jackson, subsequent to his death - and any journalist doing research into MJ is likely to have found them, since my blog is highly ranked and appears high on listings in most Google searches.

Anyway, Mika is based in London. It is of note that the Daily Telegraph, in the UK, wrote of my blog and mentioned it specifically, by name: "The Boy Who Knew Too Much", in a large article, this year. So, it is very likely that Mika was personally aware of my blog and its title. So, to those fans who think he is being "original" in his use of this title...err not so. I have been using it for years. It seems to me, that he is just trading on the familiarity of the name I have created over the past few years, to increase his album sales.

By the way, I can't help but notice that he uses the word "boy" an awful lot, for a male singer. Track titles on the album, "The Boy Who Knew Too Much", include "Toy Boy" and "One Foot Boy". You can draw your own conclusions.

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

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

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

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

Are NUS/NTU graduates creative?

NUS and NTU are Singapore's leading Universities. Their graduates are locally very respected in Singapore. No doubt, they have studied long and hard. Yet, I have cause to wonder, are these graduates creative?

Recently, I had a conversation with an American who works in an American company working in a creative industry. It is a famous American company, so I shall have to leave clues out of this account, lest it be identified. Let it be said, however, that the work that this company does straddles a couple of major creative industries with global reach.

Now, this American was observing to me about hiring practices which puzzled him. You see, one of the senior managers in the local branch of this global company was a Singaporean graduate of NTU. It was part of this manager's job to choose whom to hire to do the creative jobs that they had vacant. What troubled my acquaintance was just who this Singaporean was hiring - and why. Every single time a creative job came up, this Singaporean NTU graduate manager would look through the pile of CVs he had in front of him and select the Singaporean NUS and NTU graduates who had the best academic records. He picked the ones whose grades glistened...whose resumes dripped with A grades. Now, if you are Singaporean you will probably be nodding at this point, thinking that this is the right thing to do and is only natural. However, my American's experience with the people that were hired in this way, says otherwise. You see, the problem with these NTU and NUS graduates is that THEY COULD NEVER DO THE JOBS.

If you are Singaporean, and conditioned to believe in grades as the be all and end all of education, you might be shocked at this. I shall explain for you. The problem was that these NTU and NUS graduates with the great grades were UNABLE TO BE CREATIVE. Their resumes looked wonderful. They had jumped successfully through every academic hoop along the way - but something was missing. They had learnt to pass exams and shine in that situation - but they had never learnt how to think creatively. They were, according to my American acquaintance, unable to do the job, in every single case. They were just not good employees of this creative company.

Interestingly, have a guess who WERE the most creative employees of this company? The Indonesians were. That is right, employees who had grown up and been educated in Indonesia were the best workers in creative jobs, at this American company. The second best were the Thais - my American contact remarked that they were creative and had a good work attitude, as well.

So, this problem with NTU and NUS graduates being uncreative, is not a problem that applies to all graduates, everywhere. It doesn't apply to the Indonesian graduates from overseas - nor to the Thais (or he noted the Vietnamese)...but it does apply to the Singaporean graduates of NTU and NUS.

This leads me to understand that the type of education being received by Singaporeans in Singapore is creating graduates who might be competent in an academic sense and able to handle known and familiar tasks, in structured environments (isn't the whole of Singapore one big structured environment?) - but they are not creative. At the end of their long and arduous education, there is little creativity left in them.

Now, this really didn't come as a surprise to me, having taught in the Singaporean system at all levels, and witnessed the dearth of creativity at close hand. What did surprise me, however, was that Indonesians (who are customarily looked down upon, by many Singaporeans, perhaps because their young women tend to be maids in Singaporean households), were the most creative of all the races (other than "Americans" was implicit in his observations) employed in this large, global American company.

Many Singaporeans clamour to get their child into NTU or NUS. Yet, do they understand what the results of such an education are? Do they really want those results? Do they want an academically competent, but creatively incompetent child? If so, NUS and NTU - and the whole Singaporean education system - are perfect. However, if you would like to have a creative child...perhaps it might be best to send them overseas to Indonesia or Thailand!

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

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

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

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

Singaporean schools are destroying our children.

It doesn't take much observation of Singaporean children, trying to be creative, to realize that they just can't do it. Now, the question is: whose fault is it? I would say the schools themselves.

I have had the privilege of conducting drama classes, at times, with Singaporean children. I say "privilege" because these opportunities have afforded me a chance to learn what is going on inside the minds of young Singaporeans. What I have found there has been disappointing.

Drama is about freedom of the spirit; freedom to express the self and tell the tale of an inner life. Therefore, those who are most free, are most adept at it. Those who know themselves best, are most capable of deep performances. Those most familiar with finding answers within themselves usually have the most to show, dramatically. Yet, in Singaporean schools, I find not freedom, but entrapment. These children are trapped within a prison we cannot see: one made of structures and rules, requirements and regulations. They live in a prison that demands silence and subservience, submissiveness and self-denial. When given the chance to speak, these children have nothing to say.

Teaching drama in Singapore is a painful exercise. The children have no familiarity with their imaginations. They don't know how to summon the imagination to their aid. They don't even, perhaps, know what an imagination is. They give hollow expressions of emotion, that have no feeling. They make pathetic gestures at self-expression. In a class of twenty students, there might be one who is able to focus on their own inner thoughts and do something of modest interest. The others are, almost entirely, incapable of expressing themselves. It is as if they have NO SELF TO EXPRESS. Perhaps there is truth in that, perhaps these children have no selves or are not familiar with themselves. When asked to do something simple, like pretend they have hurt their knee, none of them show any pain; none of them show any discomfort even, they just moan without conviction - it is really quite a pathetic spectacle. When asked to show an emotion, such as sadness, or happiness, they are unable to seem to feel it, they give comic book characterizations, filled with exaggerations. They seem not to be able to reach their feelings. When asked to act out a simple scene, they seem to be unable to become involved in it, unable to consider it real, unable to behave in a way consonant with the situation they have been given. Their actions are half-hearted, and stereotyped, their words are mumbled and unclear and devoid of emotion or conviction and, they don't work together very well - they don't share the imagined space as if each of them occupies it. In short, they do none of the things an actor would normally do to express the inner life of a character, or its outwardly expressed form. Nor do they do any of the things that would normally be required to tell a story.

With work, time and effort, they do improve. Yet, what is clear is that the whole area of using their imagination is foreign to them. The children I have worked with are in their teens - yet it is clear that, despite being relatively mature, they are not acquainted with their own imagination and its powers. They are empty of inspiration. They have no experience in self-expression. It is as if they have lived their whole lives in a cell with no-one to talk to, or share their lives with, so impoverished are their communication skills and sense of how to convey an emotion, a story, an idea. It is, in fact, saddening to witness.

I enjoy, however, trying to open them up, trying to show them how to access their imaginations and make something of it. Some of them respond...others are frozen, unable to go beyond limp, ineffective efforts at stereotyped shells of emotional and ideational portrayal.

What is very, very obvious on seeing the way Singaporean children are, is how impoverished their imaginative skills are compared to children I have seen in other countries. It is just not normal to see so little imagination in teenagers. At least, it is not normal in my experience of life and teaching.

Singaporean schools leave no space for the child to be. There are too many academic demands on them, too many rules, too many regulations, too many fixed behaviour patterns to follow. There is too much emphasis on conformity and there is no permission to be individual or creative. The result is clear: Singapore is producing children whose minds have been amputated. The parts of them labelled "individuality", "creativity" and "imagination" have been cut off, leaving half a child behind.

The political masters, in Singapore, call for more creativity for one reason only: they see money in it. However, what they fail to see is that the educational system they have implemented GUARANTEES that Singaporean children will NOT be creative, will NOT be imaginative and will NOT have much a sense of self.

The only way to make Singapore a more creative place is to throw out the present education system entirely and replace it with a more humane, open, less competitive, more tolerant, welcoming system that is not consumed with rules, regulations and codes of conduct and behaviour. Singapore needs a system that allows children to breathe and be themselves. Then, and only then, will Singapore begin to nurture creative children.

It would be a better world, were this so, for such children would be happier and, ultimately, Singapore would be richer for it - for new things only come from creative children. The rigidified robots presently being produced by Singapore's education system will never, ever do anything in life apart from take orders from someone. Perhaps that is all that the system really wants: components in the economic system, unable to think for themselves or, preferably, think at all.

I would like to see a different system. I would like to see children who live and whose minds come alive when given the chance to express themselves. Perhaps an early sign of success would be drama classes that have some drama in them.

(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.)

The price of silence.

Singapore is quieter than it should be, at this time. There is a silence where there should be voices, singing.

I should explain. The Complaints Choir, which formed in Finland in 2005, is what you might term a performance art group. They gather together common complaints local to each country, from the natives of that country, select those that sound most interesting, join them together, set them to music - and sing them. Hence, their name: The Complaints Choir.

They recruit local singers in each country that they go to and work with them to create a performance that should resonate with the people of the country in question, because it gives a sung voice to their deepest concerns.

They have performed in several cities around the world, including Helsinki, Birmingham (in the UK), Hamburg (in Germany) and St. Petersburg in Russia.

They were set to perform in Singapore, in the first Asian performance of the Complaints Choir, but a Singaporean Government body stepped in at the last minute (after another government body, the MDA (Media Development Authority) had given permission), and made an unreasonable demand. The government stated that the performances could go ahead with one condition: that no foreigners could perform, for no foreigner was allowed to comment on Singaporean affairs. This was an unacceptable condition for this Finnish choir, for several obvious reasons: the conductor is Malaysian (so they can't have a conductor!), and a few singers are professional Finnish singers, whose voices would, of course, be sorely missed. The Complaints Choir cancelled all public performances, being unable to meet the demands.

The performances were to take place in very public places with a lot of passersby: Vivo City (a large shopping mall), The Esplanade (the leading theatrical centre), a Housing Development Board public housing estate in Eunos, the City Plaza complex and Speaker's Corner. Interestingly, no foreigner is ever allowed to speak at Speaker's Corner (and all locals have to register their names and intentions before doing so).

Two private performances were arranged instead, at which all who came had to register: one at the Arts House, the other at the Old Parliament House debating chamber.

Now, I have introduced this situation in detail, for a reason. I want you to understand the background to what I am going to say next. Singapore is a nation without a culture. That is a bold statement, but it is essentially true. Little that is artistic originates here and most that does is highly imitative. There is no creative, original, expressive spark. Knowing this, the Singaporean government says that it wishes to ignite such a spark. It builds cultural infrastructure: such as The Esplanade, with its theatres and concert halls and speaks of encouraging creative people to create. Yet, they do not. Little is created. Few are artistic. The culture does not grow and flourish. Why is this so? Well, because to be able to grow, the artistic community must feel free to speak out. They must not fear reprisal. They must not worry about their futures if they freely say what they wish to in their work, through their creative efforts. If an artist feels that they are being monitored, that their work is being scrutinized and that any untoward content will be in some way punished, censured or censored, they will not create. Thoughts will die unrecorded, works will go unwritten, art undrawn. There is nothing surer to kill the artistic spirit than the feeling that ones works will be greeted with any kind of punishment.

Look at what has happened here with The Complaints Choir. A group of Singaporeans, and permanently resident foreigners (PRs), answered the call from the Finnish group to convene to form a choir. They then sat down together and began to write their thoughts about life in Singapore. They worked together to express what it was that is bothersome about life here. They then selected and honed the complaints to form the lyrics to a song. They set it to music together. They rehearsed the singing of it until all sounded well. They applied for the relevant performance licenses. All was set to go ahead. Then, at the last minute, they were told that no-one who had not been born in Singapore could perform. That included all the Permanent Residents, who had taken residency here and made Singapore their homes. All their hard work in creating this piece of performance art was for nothing: they would not be allowed to perform in public.

So, what do we have here? We have a group of Singaporeans and fellow human beings from elsewhere in the world, but resident here, who, together had created a piece of performance art. They had done what the government stated it wanted people to do: be creative, express yourself. Yet, when they had done so, they were told that they could not do so. This particular art could only be performed by locals.

Let us extend their argument a little. If this song can only be sung by locals, then surely we must ban all American and European films on the television and in the cinemas - for is that not performed by non-locals? All books that have not been penned by Singaporean authors (a very small group of people) must be taken from the libraries, because they were written by non-locals. All music on the radio must be stopped at once, for apart from the tracks of Hady Mirza and the like, none of it is local. The radio stations will have to be silent. I could go on - but you get the idea. If their argument is taken into analogous realms then Singapore would have no exposure to culture or art at all. It would be a completely isolated, ignorant nation.

You may question my extension of the situation into other artistic realms by pointing out that the stated reason that foreigners could not perform was that no foreigner was allowed to comment on Singaporean affairs. Yet, all art, of any kind, is a comment on the societies to which the artist has been exposed. So, anything written or painted, or sung, or otherwise created by anyone who had ever become acquainted with Singapore would, in some way or small degree, be a comment on Singapore: knowledge of it would be part of the background of the artist. Is all creative product from people who know Singapore to be banned too?

This could be extended into other areas too. Surely it would mean that no foreign diplomat or journalist, or financial analyst would be allowed to comment on their work here, to anyone else? For would that not be commenting on Singaporean affairs?

You should be able to see by now, that the underlying premise is really rather silly. When extrapolated into adjoining areas it creates truly absurd circumstances. This is, I think, a policy enacted without a great deal of thought as to the implications. It is a "knee-jerk" reaction, that has seemingly been taken without deep consideration.

The Singaporean Government says that it wants a flourishing arts scene. It reasons that having one would make it a more attractive place for foreign talent (true) and residents alike (it would be true if they had learnt to appreciate the arts on growing up: schools here, however, don't teach them anything about them - so they can't appreciate the arts at all). The Singaporean Government has come to understand that part of the secret of London, New York and Paris, is their thriving culture: it is what makes such cities live and it is what draws people from all over the world to live and work in them, lending them their great vigour.

However, there is a problem. The Singaporean Government wants the Arts, but it also wants control. It wants to monitor, and contain what is expressed and created, within ill-defined limits. It wants to license only certain forms of expression. True freedom of expression is not allowed, for then artists might create works it does not appreciate.

This is their dilemma, then: they want the benefits to the nation of a thriving arts scene, but they cannot, philosophically and temperamentally, allow true freedom of artistic expression. What they fail to understand, however, is that without true artistic freedom, art just cannot be. Artists cannot speak when you are holding their tongues. Writers cannot write when you won't give them a pen. Without artistic freedom, the only culture Singapore will ever have - and I mean EVER have - is that which it imports. Local artists will never begin to create, if they don't feel free to do so.

The Complaints Choir is silent. Few will hear their song, written and created by Singaporeans though it was. The Singaporean Government has got its wish - as always: their unwelcome words will not be heard. Yet, there is a price to this silence. The price will be in future artistic works lost, never written, never painted, never sung. The message has gone out, from the Government, with the utmost clarity, to the nascent artistic community of Singapore: you still can't say what you wish, despite what we have declared publicly.

This is not, therefore, just the silencing of one piece of performance art - it is the silencing of a culture.

If the Singaporean Government really, truly wants to have an arts scene, that would benefit the nation and make it truly a first class city, then they have to do one thing: let go. They have to give up trying to control what people say. They must just let people be.

What will happen if they let go? Well, more art would be made. Writers would begin to write. Thinkers would begin to think. Artists would begin to paint. There would be the feeling that it was truly permitted to do so - encouraged even. An arts scene would begin to thrive - and a culture would finally be born.

It is up to the Government. They cannot have a cultured city, without letting the culture live.

I hope to see it happen one day. I would like to see this become a cultured city. If it is ever to happen, the artists must first be free to say whatever they wish. Without that freedom, nothing good will ever come to be. Singapore will remain a city without a culture.

(If you would like to learn more of Ainan Celeste Cawley, a scientific child prodigy, aged eight years and one month, or his gifted brothers, Fintan, four years and seven months, and Tiarnan, two years exactly, 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, gifted adults and gifted children in general. Thanks.)

Does anyone think anymore?

We live in a time when more people have more access to more information than ever before...but does that mean more people are reading and thinking?

I have evidence that suggests otherwise. All I need to do is look at the searches that people have made to arrive on my site. One particular search was surprising the first time I saw it some weeks ago - but what really surprised me is the fourth time I saw it. This is a search that several people, in different parts of the world have made...people who all share something in common: a lack of the ability to think for themselves.

Each of these searchers used a variation on: "A sentence with child prodigy in it." I found that unnerving in its implication for the searcher's level of creative ability. Clearly, they were unable to write a sentence, for themselves, that used those two words meaningfully - and so searched the net for such a usage, which they could then copy.

It is likely that they are students, or other people, who have been assigned a writing task regarding child prodigy - but who are unable even to construct a single sentence that uses the terms.

It is all rather worrying. Are people forgetting how to think for themselves?

(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.)

Harry Potter: Order of the Phoenix

I have just taken my family to see Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix. It was not the experience publicity had led us to suppose - but it did have its lessons, all the same.

Much of the film was concerned with what happens when an institution tries to repress the individuality and expressiveness of its people. Hogwarts school comes under the baleful influence of the Ministry of Magic, which seems mainly to be informed by paranoia and is more than a little drunk on power. Through the lens of this film, one could suppose that J.K. Rowling is examining the nature of totalitarianism, everywhere.

What is telling about the people in this film is that the children do not allow themselves to be repressed forever. This too, is true to life in most countries of the world and in most institutions where repression has been exerted too long and too hard. However, it is not always the case and, in this sense, the film is not true to what can actually happen in real life. Sometimes, the people just give in and accept their repressive situation - at least on the scale of human lifetimes.

Yet, being Hollywood, of course, the children rebel and reassert their individuality. I suppose that J.K Rowling is stating here, that she believes the desire to be individual and expressive cannot be held down for too long - for when it is repressed a desire to rebel builds up and over time, there can only be an explosion of sorts. So, too, is it in Harry Potter.

A child watching this could learn the lesson that individuality is important and must be nurtured and, at times, even fought for. The children of the school fight for many things - but one of them is simply the freedom to be themselves.

Yet, there is an unconscious irony here. You see much of the Potter themes are derivative and echo other works by other prior authors. Indeed, so obvious are some of the borrowings from other works that Ainan piped up at one time: "Why is this like the Lord of the Rings?", he enquired, not best pleased.

It is like the Lord of the Rings. Tolkien's has a "Dark Lord"...and Potter has a, well, a "Dark Lord". Frodo Baggins has a direct connection to the "Dark Lord" through his Ring - and Harry Potter has a direct connection to the "Dark Lord" - through his mind. Tolkien has Gollum who says "My precious." a lot. Potter has a very Gollum like figure who says "My mistress." a lot. There is a baddie in Potter that looks remarkably like the blond twins, in styling, from The Matrix...I could go on, but you should get the idea by now. Harry Potter is many things but it could never be accused of being original.

This is a pity, in many ways. Harry Potter is the most successful book series, of its kind, at any time. Yet, it is founded on "borrowing" themes and ideas present in prior, greater works. That it succeeds is only because its audience is too young to know where everything comes from - though Ainan is only 7 and he noticed the borrowings from the Lord of the Rings, himself. Usually, however, this derivativeness will pass a child by - and so it is that Potter can succeed.

So, the film left me with mixed feelings about it. One theme is important for children to understand: that the freedom of self-expression should be preserved - but the story is actually an example of the denial of that freedom. J.K Rowling imitates so many others through her work, that one could say she is a potent counter-example of free expression. It is a blow against the creative spirit to derive her works from the works of others. It is a blow against those who had the individuality to create their own original works. In this sense, Rowling works against the very theme that she proposes as central to this film. In a derivative world, the individual creator cannot be free to be themselves, without suffering the indignity of imitation.

It would be good to see more actual originality in Rowling's works. Perhaps it is just a function of being old enough to have seen and read quite a lot - but that background knowledge does make the entire Harry Potter franchise look like a patchwork quilt of other people's ideas. It is tiring to see such tired material up on the screen.

The film was unable to hold Ainan's and Fintan's attention and from about half way through they were getting restless and a little bored. Ainan is 7 and Fintan has just turned 4 - to give you some idea of whether it is right for your child. They preferred to play with each other, in the second half, than watch the antics on the screen. This is not their usual response to a film, by the way.

We shan't be going to another Potter movie. In that way, we will be expressing our freedom to choose, as advised by Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix.

(If you would like to read of 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, 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.)

The right answer is no answer.

Different cultures vary in how much they stress uniformity of thought. Some cultures, like those in Asia, are rather keen on it.

It begins in the education system. Education, around the world, too often stresses the "right answer". Students are encouraged to yield to the authority of the teacher and the system, in the matter of what is "right" and, in so doing, give up any native drive to be creative. You see, if there is a "right answer", then the answer must already be known. If it is known, it is not new. If it is not new, it is not creative. So, a "right answer" culture, means a no creativity culture.

Singapore is very much a "right answer" culture. I have taught in its schools, and I was very surprised by the instruction I was given by the Head of the English Department that I then worked in (some years ago, now). I was told that I had to write model answers for all the essays that I set the students. I was then to mark their output against my model answer and grade them accordingly. I found this profoundly disturbing - for it meant, very clearly, that there was only one right answer, in that school, in that system. The education system had reduced a quintessentially creative and expressive subject, like English (and the General Paper, which I also taught and for which I was given the same instruction), to a subject in which only one "right answer" was possible. In so doing, the school was enforcing conformity of thought - for anyone who deviated from the "one right answer" - would be marked down. Anyone whose thought conformed to the model answer would be marked up - and rewarded for their conformity of thought. Such a practice can only lead to a student body lacking in creativity and intellectual initiative - and this is precisely what I observed in them. They were unable to think for themselves or to originate ideas. So often when I, against usual practice, set them tasks that actually required them to think I would hear: "But you haven't told us what to write." Sad, isn't it?

I have written a little on this topic before but I felt that it needed to be revisited, in more detail.

An education system may either be open to its students' thoughts and contributions - or it may close down those thoughts and contributions - by insisting that, for all questions, and for all situations, there is only one right answer. Singapore follows such a system in its public education. Many other Asian countries do - and to a lesser extent many countries around the world. Yet, having lived in Asia, I would say that the tendency is vastly stronger here than elsewhere. Wherever this tendency occurs, students are being ill-served by their education. Many years of such a classroom situation can only erase any native creativity there is in the students.

The only right answer is that there is no right answer - except in matters of maths and science - but even then, there is room for a new answer in science and a new method in maths. Education will only ever be educative, when the teachers and the system realize this.

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

Encouraging and discouraging creativity

Singapore is a nation that talks of encouraging creativity in its people. There is a view of this small city state that, in the main, its people are not creative. There is fair justification for this view since it is not without foundation. Few Singaporeans stand out enough to be independent creators. Yet, there are some creative ones around. I just don't think they really have been getting the opportunities they needed to grow and prosper.

The government recognizes this situation and is trying to foster creativity - though how it will achieve this, I do not know. One thing it could do is to enable a child like Ainan to grow as he will, for he shows great creative promise: we will see what opportunities they offer him. From my point of view, it is a test case of the new cultural outlook, that creative minds are to be encouraged.

Not all signs, however, are good in this new world. Many old world thinkers remain. I heard a story about a Nanyang Academy of Fine Arts (a leading Art university, here) lecturer speaking to his charges. His subject was the matter of what makes a great artist and he was trying to inculcate in them an understanding of how this was to be achieved and what they should set out to do to achieve it. It is quite sickening to consider his words and their repercussions. He said: "A great artist is a great imitator."

Think about that. He was urging his students to copy others in order to become "great". No artist of any merit does this. A true artist has their own viewpoint, style and even method. Their work is unique. This lecturer thought that great art was to be found in becoming like someone else.

If Singapore is serious about becoming a more creative nation, lecturers who hold views like this one should be fired. They have no place in education, at all. There is already a local tendency to copy others. It can be seen in every aspect of life, here. It mustn't be encouraged. It must be expunged. If this nation is to become more creative, then copying must be seen as a negative, socially unacceptable activity. It should be looked down upon - and even laughed at. Were that the new attitude to imitation, then, perhaps, a more creative world would develop here. There is no chance of a more creative culture as long as teachers are encouraging their students to copy. To do so is to discourage creativity.

Quite a few students study art here. Very few become artists. Perhaps the fault lies with what their lecturers are teaching. I rather hope it changes.

(If you would like to read of Ainan Celeste Cawley, seven years and six months, and his gifted brothers, Fintan, three and 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 adults and gifted children in general. Thanks.)

What is Savant Syndrome?

I wonder, sometimes, whether all the searchers who arrive on my site looking for "genius and savants"...or "Is my child a savant?" actually know what a savant is. I think there is much confusion about as to the distinction between a savant, a genius and a prodigy. I will therefore look at what a savant is.

Savant Syndrome is the presence of an extraordinary mental ability - of a particular limited set of kinds - in an individual who usually has some disability. It is found innately in some autistic individuals - or may sometimes be induced in previously normal people through damage to the left side of the brain. This indicates either that it is a form of compensation for left brain damage - or that the left-brain was masking its presence, until damaged and the gift could shine through.

Savants have one or more splinter skills: very deep, but very narrow abilities in such areas as maths, music or sometimes art, which allow them to display an extraordinary skill - such as lightning calculation, or the recall of long pieces of music, numbers or speech - at a single hearing. Other skills noted include calendar calculation - noting the day of the week of any day over tens of thousands of years - estimating distances accurately; telling the time without a watch; acquiring random information in a usually very narrow field at a single exposure - such as number plates, or telephone numbers and the like.

Some of the searchers to my site, seem to be unaware that there is a major difference between savant and genius. A savant is not a genius - and a genius is not a savant (though some geniuses have had savant like skills). Most savants are impaired in their general intellectual functions, though savant like gifts can exist in unimpaired individuals (but these people are not, then, called savants). The key difference between savant and genius is that a savant is not creative; whilst a genius is creative by definition.

Perhaps the most famous savant, of modern times, is Kim Peek, the inspiration for Rain Man. He is unusual in many more ways than that, however, being non-autistic - but having no corpus callosum - meaning his brain is actually two separate halves. Kim Peek has a photographic memory and can recall the contents of thousands of books word for word.

As for the difference between savant and prodigy: a savant has an over-development of at least one lower level thinking skill; a prodigy has a precocious over-development of higher level thinking skills that allow them to tackle an adult domain, while still a child.

I hope that clarifies the distinction between savant, and other forms of "gift", somewhat.

(If you would like to read of 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.)

The tyranny of examination grades

Singapore is one of many Asian nations that lives under a tyranny - a tyranny of grades: everyone is obsessed with them. An examination is not considered passed until you have the highest grade in the Universe - and then some.

What effect does this have on Singaporeans? Does it make them more intelligent? Does it make them more successful? Does it make them better people? Does it make them more creative?

The answer to the last four questions is a great big NO. It makes them much, much duller. Why do I say this? Well, to secure the highest grades on a consistent basis one must give up much of life. The children don't play. They don't have outside interests. They focus exclusively on schoolwork - and have no other life. They don't know how to interact with each other. They have poor social skills. They don't understand the world. They have no perspective on what they are doing or on the meaning of life. In short, they know nothing but the contents of the examination.

Perhaps knowing the contents of the examination so well is a good thing? Well...not really. Why do I say this? An examination is all about testing you on SOMEONE ELSE'S THOUGHTS. Many children become expert on other people's thoughts - but have none of their own. In some way, focussing too much on what other people have thought and written in books seems to inhibit the development of the ability to have your own. This is not supposition - but observation. I have taught in classrooms in Singapore - and I note an absence, even in the "best" students - of the ability to think for themselves. Many of them have ceded their own ability to think and subjugated it to the yoke of a textbook written by another. Nothing worthwhile ever comes of this mindset.

If given the freedom to write as they please, teenagers brought up to see the textbook as King and the examination as all, tend to say: "But you haven't told us what to write...". I have heard that thought many times. It saddens me everytime to hear it - for it means one thing and one thing alone: their obsession with grades and their acquisition has not taught them how to think - it has taught them how not to think. It has taught them that their thoughts are worth nothing and that the textbook is everything. These youngsters never write from their own minds - but from regurgitated memories of the minds of others.

It is common in Asia to use a child's examination grades and, largely speaking, their grades alone for selection purposes for further education - and then for employment. Are these societies being served well by this practice?

I don't think so. You see, many of the children who get the highest grades, consistently, show little ability to think for themselves. They have become rigid thinkers. Their thoughts are very defined and contained by the prior work of others. These people do not originate, do not create or innovate - they only repeat the ideas of others. Such a way of life can only take a society so far. The people that should really be identified, promoted and nurtured are not the kids obsessed with grades and competitiveness - but the kids who love to learn, understand, grow and think for themselves - and for knowledge itself. By this I mean that they have a true passion for their subject. It is these children who are likely to be creative: their knowledge springs from a love of learning - and not a need for a perfect grade. In my experience, such children are more open to considering many ideas, are more able to produce their own and are more flexible in their approach to things. They may, however, be overlooked in a society that places too much emphasis on academic competition - and the consequent grading.

If grades were the answer, places like Singapore and Korea would be the greatest centres of thinking in the world - for they have the highest grades in maths and science, worldwide - yet, they are not. Other places with lesser grades have a greater reputation for innovation. This shows that there is a disconnection between grade and real world performance. What is that disconnection? It is the ability to think for oneself. Grades measure your ability to think someone else's thoughts. They say nothing about your ability to think your own - and there lies the problem. True thinkers are not necessarily being selected for and given opportunity - those who think like others, are, however.

Is there a remedy? Yes. Education systems - and societies - need to be broader in their assessment of children and the adults they become. They need to look at the whole person - and ask: is this someone with a mind of their own? Is this someone who can think independently? Is this someone with a creative spark? If the answer to any of these questions is a yes - then, as long as they have shown a basic awareness of the material of their discipline, by passing the relevant exams, the actual grades should not be regarded as particularly important. The capacity to create and innovate - and think their OWN thoughts is of vastly greater significance. A society which shows more flexibility and open-ness in how it selects its "movers and shakers" - and members of the "thinking classes", is a society more likely to give opportunity to people who actually have the capacity to do something new; the capacity to change things for the better by actually being able to be creative.

Why do I post on this? Well, it is something I have long observed and long thought on - but the immediate catalyst was my meeting with Associate Professor Tim White and a remark he made. He revealed to me his own experience of this matter. He had encountered students with perfect grades who were "rigid thinkers" - who were not very good as researchers - while he also knew of other researchers whose grades, "included the odd B or C", who were actually "among our most gifted researchers". This is a very telling observation indeed. It shows that the common thinking around educational grading is mistaken. His better researchers - that is, those who showed more CREATIVITY in the lab - actually had poorer grades than some others, who had better grades, but less creativity. This is a phenomenon that must be more widely appreciated. Otherwise societies and institutions will continue to deny opportunity and access to the very people who have the most to offer: the creative few.

What are we to learn from this? Well, a student with perfect grades may indeed be the best thinker and the best creator - but the grades themselves do not establish that: other factors not measured by the grading system, do. Creativity is not measured by examinations (especially in the sciences). So, examinations don't tell us who is creative and capable of original contribution. Therefore, we cannot say that the student with perfect grades is the best candidate for a role that involves creative production - nor can we say that they are not. We can actually say nothing about whether they are suited to such a role or not, from the result of the examination alone. However, the same applies to the student who does NOT have perfect grades. They might actually be the best researcher and the most creative individual available - but their less than perfect grades might cause them to be overlooked. It is also true that they might not be the best researcher. We can say nothing about their creative capacity from the grades alone. Yet, we MUST not close our minds to the possibility that, of two candidates, the one with the lesser grades might actually be the better creative thinker.

How are we to decide the matter then, between candidates? Look at them more broadly and see what evidence there is in their lives and work to show creativity and use that information to decide between them. Don't just look at grading - because it is often a poor guide to the best thinkers. The greatest thinkers don't really like thinking other people's thoughts the whole time - yet examinations require just that from them. So, you won't find the best thinkers by harvesting those of perfect grade.

There is an ultimate logical conclusion to this which must be stated. In the final analysis, if a person shows that they can be creative, they should be given the opportunity to create, in a supportive context, even if they have NO examination passes at all.

Now that would really be an educational revolution.

Those who will never understand

An imaginative child or adult has a very special gift. It is one that allows the gifted one to alter the world, inside, to see things anew and to envisage what has not been, but might yet be. It is the foundation of all artistic and much scientific creativity: the imagination itself.

Imagination is not equally distributed among the gifted. There are gifted children who don't possess much of it: they are bright but not given to imaginative thought. Then there are imaginative children who rarely stop imagining. In a welcoming world there is room for all types. Yet, there is a problem. The unimaginative can never understand the imaginative. Why do I say this: well, it is obvious that someone who is unimaginative cannot conceive of what an imaginative person is like to be. Why is this? Well, simply because, you guessed it, they lack the imagination to do so!

Why should this be a problem? Well, it can be a big social issue for a child if they are imaginative but living in an unimaginative social context - and this happens more often than you might suppose. For it is clear that the unimaginative children - or adults - around them, might suppose the child somehow to be "ill" because of their propensity to disregard bald reality in preference for something more interesting. Clearly, on a social level this can lead to much misunderstanding and unhappiness, but there is a greater danger. What if such a child encounters an unimaginative "professional" - working in the psychological arena? All sorts of terrible outcomes could result, simply because the "professional" lacks the imagination to truly understand what kind of child - or adult - is before them. There may very well be a tendency to mislabel them - when all that is happening is that the imaginative child - or adult - is being creative with the world, playing with it, seeing it in new ways.

So, if your child is imaginative, be on guard to protect them from the unimaginative responses they might receive: the unimaginative can be directly harmful to the imaginative, especially in terms of social response - and never, ever take them anywhere near a dull, prosaic, unimaginative professional.

This post is an extension and development of a response to Kathy, who posted something under my post about a child's imagination, recently.

Thanks.

More lessons from the classroom: morality

I wrote, recently, of the lack of imagination observable in many young people today. What implications are there for their functioning in the world?

Well, one implication came to light today in another brief conversation, I am aware of:

Teacher: "What would you do if you found a wallet in the street?"

Student, from mainland China (the same one as in the earlier posting):

"I have never found a wallet."

End of both thought and conversation.

This particular student has displayed a lack of imagination in many contexts, in the past, however, the implication that he was unable to consider a moral situation - because he lacked imagination - is a new observation. It is shocking to realize that the lack of imagination means he is not able to consider his own responses in situations he has never been in. Fundamentally, therefore, it means that he cannot know himself. Lack of imagination is, therefore, a kind of pervasive mental disability whose wide-ranging effects are little appreciated. We think of it in terms of not being creative - but it is much more than that. Without imagination a child is not fully human, and lacks the mental resources to understand themselves. Imagination is a key aspect of what it means to be a fully alive, thinking being.

Any education that imperils imagination, imperils the very future of Man. A world without imagination, is a world in which people cannot even understand themselves - never mind the world they live in.

Is this young man - for he is eighteen or nineteen years old - unable to imagine because of some native deficiency - or is it because of the way he was educated in mainland China? In some way, I hope that it is a deficiency, for if it is his education then the implication is clear: there may be over a billion like him, all having received such a debilitating education. I don't know which it is - but I can tell you this: I have seen this lack of imagination in many others of his origin. I do not know the cause - whether it be innate or environmental. The question may be essentially undecidable without doing an experiment that would, itself, be questionable.

I will keep you posted on more observations of this phenomenon, as and when they arise.

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

Conversation from the classroom: creativity at risk

I heard something today which is enough to alarm anyone who values creativity. It was nothing more than a fragment of a real conversation that took place, but the implication of it, is quite unsettling.

Teacher to student: "I would like you to write a dialogue on buying something in a shop."

Student from mainland China: "But I don't want to buy anything."

Teacher: "Imagine, then."

Student: "Imagine?" He sounded as if nothing more impossible could have been asked of him. "I can't imagine."

End of conversation.

The student in question did not believe it was possible for him to imagine buying something, without actually having the desire to buy something. That was one imaginary leap too far.

It worries me that creativity of even the most basic kind is so difficult for so many young people today. They live in "what is"...and cannot change their thinking, in any way, to create "what is not."

I don't know about you, but it is one of my greater concerns, to see this inability at work, all around me. I will write more on this in future. I just found that conversation sobering enough to have to report.