The importance of a public platform.

It has long puzzled me as to why the world is run by people who seem dumber than certain others. There are many very bright people, who could, perhaps, provide solutions to some of the world’s problems, and yet, who never – or rarely - get heard. The problem here is simple: having ideas and having a platform are two different things. It is quite possible – even probable – to be a person of ideas, but not to be gifted with a platform from which to voice them.

It seems likely to me, that the kind of person who is good at having ideas...the “genius”...is probably also likely to be poor at the people skills that might help him or her build a public platform, from which to influence people and the course of the world. Thus, it is that we have the present situation in which people who don’t seem very bright (to me and, no doubt, to lots of others, too), end up in positions of great power and influence, whilst others, who are much brighter, never really reach public attention and, therefore, have little influence.

From my point of view, it seems easier to have good, interesting and useful ideas, than it does to acquire a powerful platform from which to voice them. This, of course, means that the ideas in question may never reach their potential for beneficial influence on the world. Part of the problem is that the international news media is not really interested in ideas, nowadays – they are interested in “celebrity” (which is, of course, the antithesis of those who have ideas). Thus, anyone with an interesting idea will find that, in general, the news media have no interest in covering it. This, of course, greatly restricts the potential range of influence of the idea in question. Such an idea might end up in an academic journal – but, such journals often have such small circulations, that very few people, indeed, will ever read it. In fact, an article published in a journal often has to be “discovered”, before it can be of much influence. By this, I mean, that it must come to the attention of a broader base of academics and other interested parties, perhaps through word of mouth, from the few who have actually read it. This is an uncertain process and may not happen for years after the publication of an article.

Publishing in academic journals is not, in general, a powerful enough platform to maximize the influence of an idea. It is only when, somehow, the idea “catches on” and is propelled into public consciousness through the rare occasions on which mass media DO cover an idea, that it may reach its potential for influence.

Some few thinkers, are fortunate enough to have become sufficiently famous such that their every utterance is covered in the international media: an obvious example would be Stephen Hawking, who need only mouth an opinion, to generate coverage. This phenomenon, however, has nothing to do with ideas, or the media being interested in them, but is to do with celebrity. Were Stephen Hawking not a celebrity, no-one would be listening to him, in any way, or to any degree, at all: his thoughts would be forever unknown.

Yet, given Stephen Hawking’s public platform it is quite clear that he is able to attempt to influence the course of events, by raising awareness of matters which interest him. This is a great power and it is one that would prove more valuable still in the hands of others (who shall probably never have it), who have many ideas, but little opportunity to catch attention with them.

One happy development, for those with ideas, who seek to influence, is the advent of the Internet for it offers the means to convey an idea, to the world, without any need for an intermediary. Of course, the fact that everyone now has this power, means that the Internet is cluttered with the thoughts of hundreds of millions of people – and so ideas are now hard to notice, for a different reason: they get lost in the chatter. Yet, there is hope. The Internet offers at least a basic platform to all who have a thought to speak. In the long term, perhaps, interesting ideas have a chance of being noticed and promulgated about the world, hopefully gaining them some kind of influence. I only hope that the Internet endures to allow these ideas to be discovered and implemented in due course.

Even with the Internet, however, the truth remains that those we come to know of as thinkers are not necessarily the best thinkers. They are, in fact, those people who have developed, for themselves, the best platforms. Our view, therefore, of whom the world’s “great” thinkers are, is formed almost entirely by the ranks of those who have secured a platform, for themselves, either through their own efforts, or some variety of inheritance of fame or influence. It seems likely to me, however, that many of the world’s greatest, most interesting and potentially most important thinkers, do not have such platforms and so their thoughts go relatively unnoticed, their work of less influence, not through any lack of merits, but through a lack of opportunity to be widely heard. In time, some in this category may come to be known and their work may finally become influential – but that is a slow and haphazard process. In the meantime, the media will entertain us with the “thoughts” of those who have good platforms and distract us from the fact that there might be many others, unheard, out there, with better ideas to offer.

As a final thought, one has to ask: are the world's political leaders truly the best the world has to offer? I find it hard to believe. A recent example that leads me to question the quality of leaders and potential leaders, is Rick Perry's refusal to believe in man made global warming, despite the fact that the science behind it, is very simple indeed. To my mind, this makes him dim of wit and unsuited to any high office - yet, there he is running for leadership of the Republicans and potentially a future President of the USA. He is an example of a man of little substance, who is good at building a platform for himself. There are, I am sure, many better thinkers, who would offer more to the USA, as a leader, than Rick Perry is able to offer, who simply don't have the right platform. They are good at thinking, but not necessarily good at self-promotion.

The world would benefit from an inversion here. All those who are good at thinking but poor at self-promotion and platform building, should be thrust to the fore - and all those who are good at self promotion and platform building, but not so strong at actual thinking, should be steadfastly ignored. Were this so, we would have a world we would want to live in: a world that is solving its problems and making progress towards a better state.

In the meantime, think carefully about how you cast your vote: are you voting for an excellent thinker, or an excellent platform builder (who is not so good at thinking)? It would be wise to distinguish the two, for only the true thinker is likely to have the mental wherewithal, to solve the world's problems. Of course, rarely, the two are one: a good thinker has a good platform. I wish that were always so.

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.).

Daddy and the King

Today, I asked Fintan to consider a matter of status.

“Who is more important: Daddy, or the King?”, I asked Fintan, as we sat talking together, during lunch.

His eyes considered mine, suddenly curious.

“Which Daddy? Which King?”, he enquired, quickly and pointedly.

“This Daddy.”, I said, gesturing towards myself – “and that King.”, I clarified, pointing in the direction of a palace, that I knew Fintan would know was that way.

Certitude condensed in his eyes. “Daddy.”, he said, as if my name had all the weight in the world, “Because you are MY Daddy!”

His words to me were as the warmest hug. I felt the love he has for me, in his expressiveness – and it was good to feel.

He had no doubt at all, as to whom was the more important. For Fintan, it was clear: no-one, not even the King, could be more important than his own Daddy.

I find this interesting for what it says about Fintan. He is clearly categorizing the importance of elements of the world, in terms of its personal significance. His reference markers are internal, not external. I am important to Fintan in a way no impersonal, unknown King could ever be, no matter how much social and political status he might truly have in the world.

Yet, there was another voice in the background, that had piped up, when I had asked the question of Fintan, seven. Tiarnan, my four year old son, had also answered the question. His answer, however, was not so reassuring: “The King!”, he had said.

So, Tiarnan, is Fintan’s opposite. For Tiarnan the external social value of a person is what matters. In those terms, I cannot match the significance of a King, because society values a King, more than it does me (even if, in truth, I am a more intellectually valuable person, than any King is likely to be). Tiarnan is taking his cues from the external world, not from the personal one. Yes, I am Tiarnan’s Daddy, but Tiarnan is measuring my importance, not by my value to him, personally, but by my value to the world, or, more precisely, how much the world values me.

Fintan’s view is more touching but, perhaps, Tiarnan’s view is more truthful to the society, as it is. At this time, in this era, the particular King in question, is valued more than I am. Tiarnan sees this and says it, without pausing to reflect that I might not wish to hear such a sentiment. Yet, Tiarnan is being honest and open in so doing, so I have to respect that. He is also making it clear how he comes to value judgements: he is thinking more like a scientist, in that he is trying to be objective. Fintan is thinking more like an artist, in that his view is subjective and tied inextricably to the personal.

Who is right? Fintan, or Tiarnan? Am I more or less important than a King? Well, the world, now, would say that the King is more important…but posterity is likely to take a different view. In time, the importance of a particular King, passes and fades. When a King dies, so does their power and influence. All that they did and were, becomes history…and, after a time, it comes to be seen to be less and less important. However, I am a creative person. I am engaged in creating various types of intellectual product. The value of these products will outlast me. They will not fade so much, nor will they be superseded, so much, since they will still have value as part of the history of ideas, or creativity, in the domain created. Thus, it is that the “importance” of a creative person, may be maintained, as I see it, in a way that the importance of a King is not. Indeed, a creative person may grow in importance, over time, even long after they have died – as has happened with many historical figures, who were creative.

Then again, time is not needed to determine the relative importance of King and creator, or King and Daddy. The true, absolute relative importance, should be clear. Anyone who creates, even in a little way, is more important and more valuable to Mankind, than any King, who does not create. This is an eternal truth: the creator outshines the King, in history, for the creator makes history in a way that the King never can. A creator changes the world, by opening up new possibilities and understandings, Kings usually do nothing of the kind. Their domain is that of power and influence, social status and prestige – but, generally, what they do does not change the world in a fundamental way. Kings are replaceable and interchangeable in a way that creators are not. It is possible that the role of a King might be performed, were it allowed, by any moderately adequate person – but the role of a creator, may be so demanding, depending on discipline, that no other person is truly suited to creating those particular works, in that particular domain. Creativity is unique, Kingship is not.

The question, of course, was not whether a creator was more important than a King…but whether Daddy was. It just so happened, that this particular Daddy creates, so I have had to extend the question, to answer it fully.

In practical terms, however, Fintan is right, of course. To any child, their Daddy is more important than a distant King. The King does not love the child, does not nurture them or cherish them. The King does not sustain the child, teach the child, or raise them. The King is a distant figure, of social meaning, but no personal meaning, to a child. Only a child like Tiarnan, who is looking out into the world, and ascertaining what society thinks and values, could ever say that their Daddy was less important than a King.

I am not a King. Nor am I ever likely to be a King (unless the world changes significantly in how it operates!). I do not have a Palace, nor kingly wealth. However, I have much that the King may not. I have three sons, who are very special to me, and special in themselves. I have a wife, who is most definitely unusual in her own way, and agelessly beautiful. Then again, I have my own personal gifts – the ability to write, to think and to create. The King has none of these things. I know whom I would much rather be. I would not be a King, if it meant giving up what I have and what I am now. I would much rather just be Daddy, to my three sons and Hubby to my wife. That, to me, seems like a good fate to have. If only the King knew, he would be jealous of the “riches” that I have. As for him: I am not jealous at all, for he has nothing of substance, that I would want…or that anyone who actually thought about the situation, meaningfully, could ever want either.

(If you would like to learn more of Ainan Celeste Cawley, 10, or his gifted brothers, Fintan, 7 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.

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 at http://www.genghiscan.com/

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