Living in a one-dimensional world.

The world is not what it used to be. Or, more specifically, PEOPLE are not what they used to be. It doesn't take much reading of history to note something odd about the people recorded there: many of them seem so much more diverse and capable than the typical modern human. Today, the world is peopled by one dimensional beings, able to do one thing, if that. Yesteryear, on the other hand, was made up of people of multiplicitous talents. They lived very diverse lives, excelling at many different things.

Perhaps I should remind you of the likes of the men of the past, that we no longer have. Copernicus, for instance, of the Heliocentric theory of the solar system, was, according to Wikipedia, a mathematician, astronomer, physician, quadrilingual polyglot, classical scholar, translator, artist, Catholic cleric, jurist, governor, military leader, diplomat and economist. Wikipedia notes that Leonardo da Vinci was a painter, sculptor, architect, musician, scientist, mathematician, engineer, inventor, anatomist, geologist, botanist and writer. Benjamin Franklin is remembered as a leading author, political theorist, politician, printer, scientist, inventor, civic activist, publisher and diplomat. Thomas Jefferson was a philosopher, author, lawyer, architect, musician, naturalist, botanist, inventor, engineer, statesman, diplomat, and political theorist - oh, and President of the United States.

Modern eminences, on the other hand, are, generally, one dimensional people. They are pop stars, who often don't write their own songs, but specialize in performing them. They are academics, so specialized that the readership of their target journals is measured in hundreds and their articles are only of relevance to a dozen people. They focus their entire lives on the tiniest corners of human knowledge and make the merest increments of progress. They are writers who, typically, cultivate one type of story line - the horror writer, the science fiction author, the vampire tale spinner, and so on - and do nothing else. They are actors, many of whom do only one type of role: the action hero, the bumbling oaf, the person with a dark secret etc. They are lawyers, who spend their lives dealing with one kind of argument on behalf of one type of client, all their lives long. They are TV presenters whose highest skill is insincerity and an easy smile. This is the world we live in. A world dominated by what would once have been seen as slivers of people, with mere suggestions of ability. Diversity of careers are not only absent, but discouraged. It is frowned upon to step outside of the domain for which one initially becomes known. An actor may not write without being viewed with some amusement; a scientist may not paint without eliciting smirks and frowns; a businessman may not be a poet, without people talking behind his back, in unflattering terms. Nowadays, everyone must safely be placed in a box with but a single label - clear, readily understood, almost stereotypical. People who wish to step outside of such constraints find that the modern world really resists them. The academic known in one field, who wishes to publish in another, may find a cool reception - or even open hostility that he should dare to speak of matters on which he is "unqualified" (as if a particular piece of paper is needed to allow anyone to think). The pop star who acts, is just not taken seriously, even if his or her performances are decent. Indeed, to stray into any field outside of the one in which one has become initially established is to evoke anything from coldness, to hostility, to being shunned, ignored or just met with amusement. There is the feeling that only those who have devoted their entire lives to a particular pursuit have a rightful place in it. Yet, this is absurdly not true. Any creative and intelligent person may be able to contribute to any area of human life, given the chance to do so. It is just that in the modern world, few are given such a chance because of the dominant belief that one must specialize in one thing and one thing alone.

Given the narrowness of modern life, in the sense that diversity of activity is difficult to achieve and is actively resisted by the society, I would say that few modern people are as interesting as the most interesting people of the past. Modern men are shallow and narrow, in experience, outlook and understanding. They each carry the smallest piece of the world around with them and that, perhaps, explains much that is wrong with this world. There are many things which become more difficult to achieve, when everyone is so narrow in their views and understandings.

I would like to see an end to the one dimensional world we live in, and a return to more plural, multi-dimensional times. Unfortunately, I do wonder if modern people have the intellectual substance to be able to do such a thing. It may be that such people are too uncommon, nowadays, for such a diverse culture to ever prevail again. We can, however, but live in hope.

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

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

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

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

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

On "All-rounders" and specialists

Some gifted children are good at everything. They shine at whatever they attempt. Others seem handcrafted by some divine power, for one task and one task alone - a gift so narrow it has but a single name. Why is this so?

Well, one need only begin to think about what it means to be gifted. Each gift must be supported by a neural network. It would seem a fair proposal that those who have a greater gift must have a greater number of or complexity of neurons supporting that greater gift. There lies the problem. Each gift we possess competes with every other gift for space in our brains. Each operation of our very complex bodies is co-ordinated in some manner or degree by a part of our brain. Some of these brain functions are non-negotiable basic life support functions. They cannot be given up for another purpose. Therefore, after all the brain space is allotted, one could conclude that the space available for the cultivation of gifts may be more limited than one might suppose. Each gift is reflected in allotted brain space. A range of gifts would require a range of allotments. At some point, these gifts would begin to compete with each other for space - unless they have overlapping functions that might allow dual use of space in some way.

So how is it that some people have many gifts - and others have but one? (Not forgetting that many people appear to have no distinctive gift at all.) It could all be down to brain size and the distribution of brain space among gifts. Some people have larger brains than others. My own family, for instance, contains many people with fairly large heads - and so, presumably larger than usual brains. There is, in fact, a known positive correlation between brain size and IQ (which I could rediscover and post another time). Yet, that is not the whole story. Perhaps a great gift - a truly great gift - may require too much of the available brain space to support and so might compromise other areas of intellectual function to accommodate it - unless, of course, the brain were unusually large and able to make accommodation for all demands. However, it is clear, in the case in which a great gift exists in a brain that does not have enough space to accommodate any or many other gifts, that there would have to be compromises in other areas. Thus, there would arise people who are outstanding in some respects - truly great - but somewhat more limited in others, simply because of inadequate mental resources to cope with all demands.

The reasoning, so far, has been my own. The question is: can we observe such people in the world? Are there people of great gift who are limited in other ways? Without having to name anyone in particular, we all have the sense that this is so - from having met people who partially or wholly represent this phenomenon. We all know of a mathematically gifted person who was hopeless with anything literary - or the literary type who was hopeless mathematically. Indeed, this type of one sided person seems to be more common in my childhood memories of school than the "all-rounder". I was an all-rounder - and remain so - but there were few of us in my school, very few.

Why do I post on this? Well, a searcher arrived on my site today with the search: "Training children to be all-rounders". I have stated my reasoning above so that I might observe, now, that training a child to be an all-rounder - who isn't naturally one, by dint of the possession of a plenitude of neural resources - may involve compromises. It is possible that, in becoming an all-rounder, they might end up less good at the one thing they would have been really good at, if they had been left alone. The brain's resources are logically limited, after all. Perhaps it is better to let the inclinations of the child guide his or her education. Deep down, every child knows if they are a naturally endowed "all-rounder" or whether it is better for them to dig a single deep furrow, at which they might shine above all others.

Just as I don't believe that any gifted child can be a genius at any one thing, I don't believe that any gifted child can be an all-rounder, either. The capacities that lead to these results are, I believe, from what I have observed in the world around me, essentially innate. The "training" that this searcher sought should always, therefore, be directed to nurture whatever is natural in that child. Careful observation of the child should be enough to determine whether they naturally lean to specialization or generalization. The issue should definitely not be forced. From my argument above, it may even cause a variety of harm to do so: for the brain might be forced to make compromises in the distribution of resources which are not, ultimately, beneficial.

Best wishes, all, on raising your children as they are meant to be raised: according to their individual needs.

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

Why: "Perhaps too many gifts."?

It has been pointed out to me that my own self-description in the left hand bar, might be read as giftist. Why is this?

Well, I say of my own childhood that I had "perhaps too many gifts". This is not meant to attack the idea of having many gifts, it is meant to highlight the problems that arise when one does. Below I post a copy of my comment in regards to the poster who raised this issue:

"I describe myself as having "perhaps too many gifts" because the more gifts you have the more tendency there is to dilute effort across them all, which can, in fact, hamper the gifted child. I was not rueing my gifts: each one was and is precious to me and in some way helps define who I was and am - but I am also aware that fewer gifts may have led to quicker results through greater focus. That was my point."

So, I hope you can see that is not being giftist - this is just being realistic about the effects on one's allocation of time and energy that having many gifts has. Those of fewer gifts have a natural advantage when it comes to making effective use of them because more time can be focussed on each one. That is all.

Are many gifts better than one?

If we look back at the past, some of the figures we most admire, such as Leonardo Da Vinci, had many gifts. He was a man who, seemingly, could do anything excellently. Is this situation the ideal one?

In one way, it would seem to be, for it lends the bearer of the gifts, many opportunities and choices: there is nothing they cannot do if they have gifts in the sciences and the arts, practical gifts and theoretical gifts, musical gifts and athletic gifts. Such people may do as they please in life. That is the clear advantage. However there is one disadvantage that is not so clear. With many gifts, there will be a tendency to dilute one's efforts among them and so reduce the likelihood of success in any of them. In the modern world, therefore, the person of many gifts may not succeed in the way that a person of one gift would: eminence requires focus and effortful attention over many years. That does not come easily to someone who has half-a-dozen areas of expertise. Such a person may sparkle brightly in one way, and not at all in another.

I have seen such a tendency in my own early life. I had many areas in which it was easy for me to shine - science, acting, writing, music, art and academia. Yet, having so many areas meant that I was pulled in several directions and so did not dig sufficiently deep in any of them to satisfy my potential in those areas. Many years were perhaps "wasted" pursuing one gift at the expense of others. Although I would say that pursuit of any of one's gifts makes one grow - and so makes the whole person more complex and more interesting.

I was a physicist for a time, with a government laboratory, at 17. It was at the National Physical Laboratory in Teddington, Middx., UK. I enjoyed it and completed two research projects while I was there - a major and a minor, if you like. I worked as an Arts magazine founder and editor, for a couple of years - and again, found it enjoyable and rewarding. I have written two non-fiction books and done major work on two others. (The process of publishing these has begun). I used to draw very distinctive compositions as a teenager...but gave up due to personal injury at 17. I have yet to return to it. Though, a piece of my performance art, "Lord Valentine the Misplaced" was global news on CNN, and Reuters, among others, in the 1990s. The interviewer at CNN, was Richard Blystone who was, or became, the European Bureau Chief. As a child, singing was one of my greatest joys. I went to Cambridge University and studied Natural Sciences, taking my B.A and later M.A. This I did not enjoy for reasons too diverse to discuss here, though I would point out that I was unlucky enough not to find a mentor there. I have also acted on stage, TV and the odd film. I appear regularly on TV in South-East Asia of all places.

Yet, there has been a price for this diversity: the cumulative effect of working in one area with focussed effort over time, is to establish a rather large presence in a field. That doesn't happen in a short time if you are working in several fields. Would I do things differently had I the opportunity? Perhaps - but then I would have paid a different price - the lack of diversity of experience that I have garnered in my varied career.

Why do I write this? Well, many parents are worried about the development of their children. They want to see them become all-rounders in some instances, or to shine at one thing in others. Is either superior? Well the first gives great flexibility of choices - but the latter could be superior from the career point of view. You see the person focussed on one thing is infinitely more likely to become a great shining success in it, than the person who has several mini-careers. That being said, of course, if the person of several mini-careers becomes famous for any one of them, he or she may become known as a polymath, and admired for that characteristic - and rewarded with opportunities in the other areas, too.

Ainan, my scientific child prodigy son, shows great focus on science, at present, although he has shown aptitude in music and art among other things. If his focus is maintained as he grows up, he is likely to make a significant impression in whichever scientific area is his choice. I don't worry that he might be less "polymathic" than I was - for I see something now which I did not understand then - there is a definite advantage in picking a strength and working with it. He has other strengths and each may develop at different stages in his life - but it is as a scientist that I think he will most readily shine - for that is the subject of his focus.

So if your child has many gifts, or just one: don't worry - for both have paths to success - and in some ways, it is the child of one great gift who has the easier path.

(If you would like to read more about Ainan Celeste Cawley, my scientific child prodigy son, aged seven years and one month, or his gifted brothers, please go to: http://scientific-child-prodigy.blogspot.com/2006/10/scientific-child-prodigy-guide.html I also write of child prodigy, child genius, adult genius, savant, the creatively gifted, gifted adults and gifted children in general. Thanks.)

Leonardo Da Vinci's Last Words

For many years, I have mulled over the last words of Leonardo de Ser Piero da Vinci.

Leonardo da Vinci was born on April 15, 1452 and died on May 2, 1519.

As you no doubt know, he was a true Renaissance Man - a man gifted in many areas. He was an inventor, a scientist, a painter, an architect, an engineer, a military engineer, a musician, both as performer and composer, able to sing and compose songs spontaneously, a noted anatomist, a geologist, a geometer, a mathematician, a sculptor, a physicist and astronomer, a Roman Catholic and a vegetarian. He was the quintessential polymath, who could turn his hand to anything and acquit himself as well - usually better - than any man of his Age. There is much more that I could say about this astonishing universal genius - and I have written one post about him already. http://scientific-child-prodigy.blogspot.com/2006/09/did-leonardo-da-vinci-exist.html However, it is to his last words that I wish to draw your eyes.

I cannot read Italian in the original, nor would I be familiar with any dialectical variations attendant on the sixteenth century Italian he would have spoken, so I have had to rely on translations.

Many years ago, in a book now forgotten, in a place unremembered, I read what were stated to be the last words of Leonardo da Vinci - and it is this first version or translation of his final utterances that remains my favourite.

"I have offended God and Mankind, by doing so little with my life."

Think about that. The greatest universal genius of all time, thought that he had done nothing much with his life. Isn't that a humbling thought?

He died in the arms of the King Francis, the King of France: the highest honour that could be accorded in the situation, the King being divine.

I have since seen two other, different versions of these words and rather wish that I was familiar with the original Italian language.

"I have offended God and Mankind, by not having worked at my Art as I should have."

and "I have offended God and Mankind because my work did not reach the quality it should have."

All three versions agree that he was expressing dissatisfaction, either with himself or his work. In a way, this is tremendously sad, that he should summarize his life of struggle and achievement in this way. It seems that his inner vision of what he sought to achieve was ever higher than the result.

If only Leonardo da Vinci could know how much he is appreciated almost five hundred years after his death. Perhaps, then, he would not be so worried about having offended Mankind by his lack of personal effort. Rest in peace, Leonardo.

(If you would like to read about my scientific child prodigy son, Ainan Celeste Cawley, seven years and one week old, and his gifted brothers, then please go to: http://scientific-child-prodigy.blogspot.com/2006/10/scientific-child-prodigy-guide.html I also write of child prodigy, child genius, adult genius, savant, the creatively gifted, gifted children and gifted adults in general. Thanks.)