Wikipedia: suppression of the truth.

Wikipedia is touted as an encylopaedia that anyone can contribute to, thus sourcing knowledge, potentially, from all human beings. Yet, it doesn’t quite work that way because, just as anyone can contribute knowledge, anyone else can also remove it. Sometimes, people just don’t want a truth to be known.

Recently, I have tried to contribute to Wikipedia, in the entry about George Magazine, the defunct political magazine, started by the deceased John F. Kennedy Jr. and a few of his pals, before he managed to pilot a plane into the sea. My contribution sought to create awareness of a curious coincidence that can only be explained by plagiarism, or imitation by Kennedy and Matt Berman (the “creative” director on the project). I wished to alter the article to point out that my performance art character Lord Valentine the Misplaced, an 18^th Century Dandy living in the 20^th Century world, began to appear in the media about a year before the first issue of George Magazine. You may recall that George Magazine covers consisted of dressing 20^th Century people in 18^th Century costume, in the context of a 20^th Century magazine cover. The first cover consisted of Cindy Crawford as George Washington (an 18^th Century person). Clearly this “idea” of Matt Berman was not new. The simplest explanation is that he took the idea from me, since I had been on CNN, NBC News and Reuters, among other media outlets, as Lord Valentine the Misplaced, in the year leading up to the first issue of George Magazine.

At first I cited my blog entry on George Magazine in support of my change to the article. That blog entry in turn cited CNN, NBC and Reuters. I also mentioned in my “edit summary” that further proof was to be found at CNN, NBC and Reuters, as well as the Observer newspaper and Time Out magazine. This first attempt at alteration was reversed by one “Pinkadelica” from the US, within fifty minutes. Her reason for doing so: “blog not reliable source”.

About a week later, I reversed Pinkadelica’s reversal, and added a new source: my IMDB page (see: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm3438598/bio)

I also pointed out that Pinkadelica had not consulted the CNN archives, where proof was to be found. This time my change lasted a few hours. However, it was again deleted, by persons unknown, this time in a non-reversible fashion (I would have to retype my entry again, instead of clicking a button).

I find this very rapid defense of this page curious indeed. Is it being defended by people who support the Kennedys or perhaps Matt Berman? Is this page being watched by those with a direct interest in it? Are they suppressing any truthful statements that might make “their people” look anything less than wonderful?

My changes have cited CNN, NBC news and Reuters – as well as several other sources – yet, still, they are reversed in a very short time. There is proof out there that what I am saying is true – yet still, they reverse the changes. This amounts to willful suppression of the truth. The writers of the George Magazine article would like you to believe that Matt Berman had a creative idea. He did not. He stole a creative idea and made it his own. What he did on the front cover of that magazine, had already been done for a long time, by me. It had also already been covered in the global media. Yet he won acclaim for this second hand idea. I am still puzzled as to why. Were there no people in the media in the US, able to connect a prior CNN news item and Matt Berman’s supposed idea? Does no-one think in the media there? Have they no memories? The connection is obvious between my prior work and his subsequent covers, yet no-one made that connection, in the media, at all. Now, when I try to draw attention to the connection on the George Magazine Wikipedia article, it is almost instantly reversed and my truth suppressed.

It has become clear that it will not be possible to have the truth known, on Wikipedia. There are too many defenders of untruths working on maintaining their lies, in the Wikipedia space. Wikipedia is too easily undermined by those with political interests, who can use articles to support the reputations of particular people, to the detriment of the truth about those people. All they have to do is rapidly remove any appearance of the undesired truths, no matter how well corroborated they are by citations – or reinsert their own untruths, if they have been deleted. The contents of the Wikipedia come down to who is more determined – or has more time and resources – to maintain their particular viewpoint. Thus, it is that Wikipedia is not impartial. Its views are driven by those with the most energy to maintain them.

It is only the word of mouth from those who read my articles on my blog, that stands to counter the truth suppression of Wikipedia. So, please tell others of the background to the George Magazine covers. They were not the invention of Matt Berman – they were his deliberate imitation of my prior performance art work, Lord Valentine the Misplaced.

Of course, my experience of a truth being suppressed by Wikipedians does call into question the whole edifice of the Wikipedia. What other truths are being suppressed on Wikipedia? What other viewpoints are being denied us? Are these manipulations purely from political sources (as the George Magazine edit changes might be) or are the suppressors of the truth more general in kind and source?

Have you had experience of a truthful statement being suppressed on Wikipedia? Have you had problems posting an alteration to it, even though you had sourced your change and it was justified? Do write your experiences below. Thank you.

(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.)

The new Hollywood villains.

Once it was Russia, that was the staple villain, in Hollywood films; then it became the Latin American drug lord - and, more recently, the Islamic terrorist, from an ill-defined country somewhere in the Middle East. No doubt you are all familiar with these stock villains...but there is, now, a new Hollywood villain. I would like you to consider, for a moment or two: whom do you think has now been labelled as villainous by that moronic town, Hollywood?

Well, it might surprise you, as it did me, but the new Hollywood villain - is...the child prodigy father.

Yes. Hollywood actually believes and wants you to believe that the father of a child prodigy is good villain material.

In an episode of Law and Order: Criminal Intent, entitled: "Bright boy" (season 2, episode 2), detectives find a "slain social worker killed trying to protect a child prodigy from his ruthless father."

Now, that is an absolutely MAD plot - and one extremely damaging to all prodigies and their parents everywhere. It creates, in people's minds, the idea that the prodigy is somehow created through ill-doing - that the father (or other parent) of such a one, is a kind of villain...even a monstrous villain who would kill a social worker.

Then again, why is there a social worker involved at all? The clear implication is that the prodigy is a put upon person, who needs social protection from their family dynamics. Again, this is not reflected by reality. It is, in my view, impossible, absolutely impossible, to create a prodigy through any form of coercion or enforcement of a regime: if the child doesn't want to learn, the child will not learn. It is that simple. There is no possibility of a "villainous" father creating such a high performance child.

In a way, this episode of Law and Order, is profoundly sad. It is sad because of what it says some sections of society believe about gifted children and their performance. This idiotic episode, with its crass misunderstanding of human nature, is perpetuating the idea that prodigious children are "forced" to be the way they are. The promulgation of this toxic view is very harmful to the families of gifted children everywhere. Indeed, so harmful is the plotline to this film, that I wonder if the families of prodigious children could take a class action lawsuit, for the damage this film will do to their reputations as a minority, in society.

That an American company would actually make a film with a plot as absurd as this, just gives me one more reason (among many others) why I wouldn't want my family to live in the US. What morons.

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

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

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

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

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

The impossibility of Truth.

It is a very strange thing, to be known, by those we do not know. However, we are. There are many people in the world, who think they know about us. I have seen them comment on blogs and in the odd forum, as if they truly know us. Their words are written with certainty and argued authoritatively. Funny enough, at times, they have even argued with me, against my own view of myself – as if I, of all people, would not be in a position to know my own life, well. The oddest thing about all of this, however, is how often those who write of us are wrong about us – and odder still, just how wrong they are.

There are many reasons why they are wrong. One of the primary reasons is that the Singaporean media has been lying about us. Thus, people living in Singapore, or who read Singapore’s newspapers online, have picked up misinformation calculated, by the state of Singapore, to diminish us, and elevate themselves. It is state propaganda designed to “build the nation” and disparage anyone perceived as a threat – apparently us. Thus, in some cases, it is not the fault of the forum commenters that they are wrong about us – because they have been lied to, and chosen to believe the lies.

There are other reasons, too, why people are misinformed about us. One big reason is that many bloggers and forum commenters simply make things up. They lie, from their own motives, about us. They add details which have no correspondence in reality. They make assumptions which are simply not true. They even create arguments to try to prove their erroneous viewpoints, drawing on “evidence” which more often than not, is itself not true, either. Some even lie about knowing us or our family personally – yet reveal themselves to be liars, in this respect, even if anonymous, because their “information” is so far wrong that it could not possibly have come from anyone who genuinely knows us. Once, someone even claimed, online, to have been Ainan’s personal tutor for his Chemistry O level – when, in fact, he has NEVER HAD A TUTOR. It is quite astonishing what some people say.

Basically, there are a lot of liars on the net – and a lot of lies, too. Some of the lies are faithfully retold, by innocent parties, who genuinely believe them to be true. Some lies, however, originate with the commenter and are mischievously invented. Whichever type of lie it is, they are damaging in the sense that they obscure the truth. We become forever less accurately known. Who we really are, becomes successively more obscured, by the fibs floating around. Ultimately, we become lost to view, who we are, forever unknowable by anyone who doesn’t actually know us.

Now, why does this concern me? Well, because I think it important that the public image, reflects an underlying truth. If the public image is commandeered by those with an agenda designed to confuse it, obscure it, or diminish it, then people come to believe that we are, who we are not. This, I think, is perilous. For what would happen, one day, should Ainan continue to be interested in science and should he continue to develop as he is? Well, the time may come when he is a successful, perhaps influential adult scientist. His work might become substantial and respected. He might even become someone of whom a biography might one day be written. That day, is a dangerous day, given the obscuration of the truth on the net. For what would inform that biography? Would the biographer dig back into the internet past and discover a lot of misinformation? It may come to be that lies become committed to paper as biographical history. It may one day be, that those lies become the official record. Ainan’s life might forever be known, by tales first imagined on some blogger’s page, or forum commenters mischievous comment. That would, I feel, be a pity. It would be a great shame if Ainan were one day to be “known” on the basis of officially believed and recognized misinformation. Yet, what can we do to prevent this? It seems that there is little to be done, except what I am doing: telling our tale, daily, on this blog, as it truly is, and not as some people might have you believe it to be. I hope that it is enough. I hope that biographers are wise enough to ignore the nonsense on the net and listen preferentially to those who actually know what they are talking about.

Indeed, the truth is so different at times, from the opinions and views and “facts” voiced on the internet that it seems to me that, at this time, there is only one possible source for a biography that would have any hope of being true – and that is ourselves. Any other source, would just be a compendium of misinformation, mischievous lies, mistaken gossip – and state propaganda. The truth of Ainan would be completely lost beneath the weight of utter nonsense.

Come to think of it, it will probably always be true that the only source of reliable information, will be ourselves. Any source removed from us is, more often than not, either misunderstanding the situation, guessing, or, quite simply, making it all up.

This experience has taught me to be wary of the public information on public figures. I am sure, given our experience, that much of what we think we “know” about public figures is total nonsense. Our understanding of these people, is informed by a lot of misinformation – some deliberate, some otherwise. In fact, I am of the view, now, that we don’t KNOW any of these public figures, at all. We only think we know. Our consumption of the media, has given us the delusion that we think we know these people, that we have some understanding of their lives. However, I am sure that this is not so. They will not be, in any case, as we imagine them to be. Sure, we will know some core events in their lives – but much of what we think we know, will be untrue. Thus, the overall picture of any public figure, will be essentially false.

That is, I think, an important insight. We would all do well, to bear it in mind, whenever we read of a public figure. What we think we know, may actually be nothing more than a myth, spread by the mischievous, or those who have innocently misunderstood. We should, therefore, sift carefully what we read and test it for likelihood, and consistency with all we think we know about that person. There will be some truths in there somewhere. The only problem is that there will be a lot of lies, too. The trick is to distinguish the two, and come to one’s own, genuine understanding of the public figure. Alternatively, we can safely assume that what we read of them, is nothing but amusing fiction and treat it all as a good story.

As for us: I will continue to write this blog and try to put our view across. I can only hope that people are wise enough to realize that our source is the only one that actually knows of what it speaks. Everyone else is largely guessing, making it up or spinning propaganda. At the very best, everyone else’s information is secondhand. At the worst, it is a carefully crafted lie. Personally, I know which source, in the circumstances I would go to. I hope you do, too.

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

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

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

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

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

The New Paper and the order of events.

The New Paper today carried an article about Ainan and ourselves, in it. In fact, it had two articles. One article concerned his achievement in passing the O level Physics younger than anyone else has done...two years after he passed O level Chemistry younger than anyone has ever passed an O level. My concern, though, is the second article, for I fear it has quite a few errors of information in it.

I shall explain. When telling a story, the time order of events is very important for understanding the truth of the story. However, the New Paper article muddles up the order of events, to make things look more favourable for the MOE. I find this an interesting failing...

In the article, it says that the MOE offered us workshops at the Science Centre, which we declined, and then it says we walked out of a meeting with the MOE and said we didn't want any more offers of support from them. This is not true. It makes it look like the MOE were trying to be supportive. They were not. The truth is, in fact, very different.

What happened was that we had a meeting in 2007, towards the end of the summer (I think of the summer as the middle months of the year, since I come from Europe), at which two officers from GEP were gatecrashing: they had not been invited by us, but turned up anyway. This is typical inconsiderate behaviour of GEP officers. The relationship was already pretty sour by then, so I am pretty sure they knew we wouldn't want them around - yet they turned up anyway. The Principal of Ainan's school hadn't told us they would be there, either, which is rather off, I think. Anyway, at this meeting, the GEP officers (including our case officer, who was a truly difficult person to deal with), refused everything we asked for. We made SO many different suggestions of ways in which they could help Ainan - and they refused them all. Finally, I asked if Ainan could have practical classes at NUS High (where he had been studying, though to no use, since the class was below the level of his then knowledge and ability - but they didn't respond to that). She said: "No." very firmly. She then went on to say: "If you want practical classes, why don't you find a private school and PAY for them YOURSELF!"

I thought she was a little too aggressive to be a government officer, but there you are, I didn't hire her.

I told her that Ainan has a very practical learning style and needs to do Chemistry, not just read about it.

She said: "Oh we at the Gifted branch think learning style is very important..."

"Well, I have just told you he has a practical learning style, so can he have practical classes?"

She snapped at me: "Oh that is not good enough for us!"

I couldn't take it anymore from this silly woman. She was telling me that the view of the parents, who know the child best of all people in the world, was no good for the GEP: it was to be dismissed.

I rose then and said: "We will never speak again!", though I did say one more thing: "Your problem is that you don't listen!"

Then I left - and we never did speak again, despite what the MOE says in its article in the New Paper (they claim we did some months later).

Now, what I find interesting about the article is that it moves the walk out event above to being AFTER the offer from the MOE regarding the Science Centre. This is so not true it makes me want to vomit. I walked out on the GEP, in the late summer 2007. The offer of the Science Centre arrived in February 2008 - with a bill attached: we would have to PAY for the GEP's "support". I know of no country on Earth that would ask a gifted student to pay for an intervention supposed to help them...except for Singapore of course. Anyway, we declined them, for two reasons: one was that they never actually bothered to explain to us what the workshops were about - and secondly, they wanted us to pay for them and that we just couldn't really do, at that time. The offer of a few workshops at the Science centre came via Ainan's Principal. When I saw that our GEP case officer's name was mentioned in the correspondence, I was not happy - because she had been such a pain to deal with. I said to the Principal that we wanted nothing to do with the GEP. That is all I said. I did not contact the GEP, nor the MOE. I had kept my promise and I never spoke to them directly again, after the walk out. Yet, they state in the article that we told them in February 2008 that we didn't want any more "help" from the MOE. I find that very strange, since we didn't actually speak to them at all - and what we said to his Principal referred only to the interference of the GEP and, more specifically, the officer that we just could not stand having to deal with. So, in a very real sense, the article is not true to events. The order is wrong - and some things just did not happen in the way they say.

We gave up on the GEP because they were refusing to help in anyway: they were turning down all our suggestions. The article has changed the course of events to make it look like we were turning down an offer from the GEP. This is just not true. There was NO offer on the table when we walked away from them. The Science centre "offer" (it is not an offer actually because we would have had to pay for it) came about 6 months after we had had our walk out with the GEP. Thus, changing the order of events, COMPLETELY CHANGES THE MEANING OF WHAT HAPPENED. It makes it look like we were being difficult - when in fact it was our GEP case officer who was being difficult.

Also, the person they interviewed at NUS High was someone who has been caught out in the past in what seems like a lie - because his students contradicted what he said to us. Yet, this was the man they quote with reference to Ainan. All in all, I am not happy with the way the article has distorted events.

Perhaps the distortions of events are unintentional and due to the assumptions of the writer about what must have happened. Perhaps they are deliberate distortions. I do not know - but I know this: all the changes in events make the MOE look better than it should. That all changes were in favour of the MOE does make one wonder why the events were depicted that way. The fact is the MOE was very difficult to deal with with respect to Ainan. The GEP officers were completely deaf to all information that came from us and completely ignored all requests. They did their own thing - and their own thing was always, in our view, inappropriate, insufficient, or just unnecessary. The article did not capture that at all. It created a very different impression - one that tried to make us look as if we were turning away support, when in fact, the MOE/GEP were the ones refusing to support adequately and in a timely fashion.

Another thing the article missed: the offer of the Science centre came a full THIRTEEN months after his O level in Chemistry. Well, excuse me, I think that any gifted intervention programme that takes more than a YEAR to find somewhere to support a kid's interest, should be fired at once...all of them. Then again, the offer was very little. It was just a few workshops in somewhat irrelevant Chemistry. It was also at a price (not free).Furthermore, it was not what we required - ongoing practical experience. The MOE failed to support Ainan. The New Paper failed to report this accurately, but instead tried to diminish one parent's quest for a suitable education for his gifted son.

I must say, though: I am not surprised. In Singapore, the little guy...that is me...has no say or power at all. The big guy will always manage to drown out the little voice and put their version of history across. I am getting to understand that the news here, in Singapore, is often not what it should be: it doesn't accurately reflect what really goes on and will always be slanted to make the system shine in a glossy, blameless fashion. The truth, however, can be very different. The only problem, of course, is that, in Singapore, that is something the readers will never get the chance to evaluate.

(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.)

Cartoon lessons in Physics.

Cartoons are teaching our children about the world. However, the lessons they teach are a tapestry of errors.

Today, I was watching a cartoon with my kids, when I saw something that is typical of the cartoon world. A baby fell from a building and an adult jumped after it, some seconds later, in an attempt to catch it, and cushion its fall. Apart from, of course, the lunacy of imagining that two falling people are better than one, I saw a fundamental problem with the sketch that unfolded - and so did Ainan.

As is the way of cartoons, the journey to the Earth was rather eventful, with many twists, turns and interesting encounters on the way down - though both baby and adult continued, generally, to fall.

Towards the end, baby and adult took different paths. The adult fell into a giant tube, the baby passed alongside the outside of it. Oddly, the adult, who had jumped second, came out of the tube at the bottom FIRST - and caught the baby, saving the day.

"Impossible!" I said, to Ainan's agreement.

I know cartoons are meant to be enjoyed, but is it necessary for them to teach young children errors about the physical world? The acceleration due to gravity is going to be the same for all falling objects, the only variation being their ultimate terminal velocity. Basically, the man cannot catch the baby, because both are subject to the same acceleration, unless, for some reason, the baby's terminal velocity were lower than the man's.

Cartoons are eagerly watched for many years by growing children. I watched them, too. Yet, now that I am a father, I find myself concerned at whether children who watch them, come to imbibe misunderstandings about the physical world.

This, of course, leads to the question: is it impossible to be entertaining without breaking the laws of physics? I don't think so. There is nothing in the nature of entertainment or a child's mind that requires physics to be discarded when making an entertaining cartoon or any other form of entertainment. I think the problem here is more likely to be that cartoonists DON'T KNOW ANY PHYSICS. I think many of the cartoonists don't know that some of the things they do violate basic principles and are thus purveying misinformation. Of course, in other cases, I am sure that violation of basic physical principles is done precisely because it leads to interesting consequences - but there is nothing about how humans are entertained that requires that cartoons do that, universally.

All that our children hear, see, touch and feel, is part of their education about the world. I would like to see more responsible cartoon making that doesn't include subtle errors that might confuse a child about how physical reality actually works. Physics is difficult enough, for most children, without confusing them about its basic laws.

Some people will dismiss my concerns with a "Of course the children know it is not real!". Well, that is most certainly not so for young children (my two year old, Tiarnan, for instance, is convinced that he knows where Ben 10 lives!). Furthermore, many of the errors of physics found in cartoons are subtle - such as the falling adult catching the baby. They are impossible, but not obviously impossible to a young child. These are particularly dangerous. It is only when a child has developed sophistication about the physical world that they will spot such errors (such as Ainan did). However, the cartoons, themselves, will interfere with the development of such physical sophistication.

I think it is time that cartoon makers and Hollywood, in general, behaved a little more responsibly towards their young audience. I don't think it helps the world to be confusing young minds in this way, with lessons in misinformation that they may, actually, never unlearn.

Films and cartoons can be fun, without misinforming the audience. Why not try making entertainments that actually respect the laws of physics? It would certainly make it easier to be a teacher of young children, without having to correct a myriad of cartoon induced misunderstandings.

Note: It has come to my attention that at least one reader thinks I am stating that my own children are confused about physics. They are not. In fact, the eldest is very competent in physics and the others are just fine. I write about children in general, in this case and NOT my children in particular.

(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.)