The psychological effect of fame.

I noticed something very odd the other day. Ainan, 11, was going for an interview for something or other (no need to discuss it further, just yet). Standing to one side, holding a form that I had just filled in, was a young woman. A little shudder passed through her, as I gazed at her. How curious, I thought.

“What’s up?”, I asked, gently.

She clutched the form, concerning my son, more tightly, in her hand. “I am nervous.” She shuddered again, as she said this.

Now, I hadn’t expected that. I didn’t enquire about what, for I knew, at once, what must have been making her nervous. It was all rather strange. SHE was part of the team interviewing Ainan – yet it was not Ainan who was nervous, but HER. It was Ainan’s fame that was affecting her so, it seemed. To her, Ainan was a personage she had read about in newspapers – a somewhat legendary figure, therefore – and so, to meet him, in the flesh, was for her a matter of some challenge.

I led the conversation away from the thought that made her nervous and on to the task that Ainan had to complete, that day. As her thoughts turned to her work, she seemed to relax somewhat – for that domain was more in her control.

The moment was a startling one for me. It made me realize that, though Ainan is very young, he is, already, to many eyes a “famous person” – with all the psychological effects on people that come with that. I am led to wonder how much this effect on others will grow, over the years, as he continues to achieve unusual things and continues to become better known, thereby. To me, he will always just be my son – but to others, it is clear, he is already becoming something else – a figure of some weight, in the world, at least in terms of the effects he has on people’s minds. This little incident was just a hint of what fame can be. I learnt something from it: when a person becomes famous, it is not they who change, but the whole world in response to them. My son, Ainan, was still my son Ainan – he had not changed in any way since becoming well known – but, at times like this, it was clear that the world had changed in response to him. The world was no longer the same – it was gradually becoming something else, something new.

I hope that whatever the world becomes, in response to Ainan, that it continues to be welcoming and accepting, as it has been so far. I know this, however: that whatever happens, Ainan, being Ainan, will remain centred and calm, in the middle of it all. Ainan’s fame will change the world, as it appears to him – but Ainan will remain as he is: a quiet observer of it all.

I am left with one question, as I reflect on that twenty-something woman’s reaction to Ainan. How will girls behave towards him, when he becomes a teenager? If a twenty-something woman can be led to shudder at his presence, how on Earth will teenagers react when Ainan, himself, is one? Perhaps this particular young scientist will have something of the “pop star” about him. There are, after all, already signs of some perturbations in the social world. I wonder what Ainan will make of it all? We shall have to wait and see.

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.)

What a genius needs.

More than creativity, a genius needs courage, for there is nothing more hostile than a world confronted with a new idea.

(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

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.

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 at http://www.genghiscan.com/

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

Creative students in the classroom.

Are creative students valued in the classroom? Do teachers like creative students or do they move against them, at every opportunity?



From my own personal observations, I would say that it depends on the teacher. Some are open to creative students and others are positively hostile to them. However, that is just a personal sampling of the situation - what does the research say?


Well, I found an abstract of a most interesting article in the Creativity Research Journal, from the January 1995 issue (Volume 8, Issue 1). It was entitled: "Creativity: Asset or Burden in the Classroom?" by Dr. Erik L. Westby and Dr. V. L. Dawson. It is, basically, a direct answer to my question.



These two researchers used prior research that described the characteristics of a creative person. They then got the students in a school to rate each other on these characteristics, so as to identify those that fit the model of what a creative student was like. The teachers were asked if they liked working with creative students: they said "yes". Then, not taking their word for it, they got the teachers to reveal which students they liked and which they did not. Rather worryingly, there was a negative correlation between creativity and being liked by the teachers. There was also a positive correlation between being creative and being disliked by the teachers.



Something strange was going on. The teachers SAID they liked creative students, but the ones who had been identified as creative were actually the ones that they DISLIKED. A closer examination of the situation revealed that the teachers thought of creative students in a different way. The ones teachers thought of as creative had a different set of characteristics to the ones research had identified as being associated with creativity. So, it seems, that teachers don't know who the creative students are.



Erik Westby and V. L. Dawson reexamined the situation in the light of the new understanding of the teachers' view on creative students. It was found that there was a nonsignificant correlation between being a favourite student and fitting the teachers' idea of what a creative student was. The favourite students tended to be more like the teachers' stereotype of what a creative student was. (Though, of course, this was unlike what a creative student actually is.)



This paper struck me as deserving of more attention. People really should know that it has been shown that teachers tend to dislike creative students (even though they think they like them). This finding rather accords with my own observations of school life.



This situation presents a problem. If creative students are actively disliked by their teachers, then school will be, for them, an unpleasant experience. They might experience active hostility from their teachers (as I did sometimes, myself). Their ideas might be attacked, simply because they are ideas. (Just like my essays meeting a hugely hostile response from some Cambridge University staff). Indeed, it may be that the creative student would not benefit from school in the way that non-creative students do.



Teachers should be professional. They should not allow their personal likes and dislikes to influence their behaviour in the classroom. So, the remedy to this situation comes down not only to instilling an understanding of what a creative student is, in the teachers - but in training them not to respond negatively to ANY student, no matter what they do or how they are. It is not the teacher's role to be partial. They should be fair to all and unkind to none. That should be a basic tenet of any teaching life.



The schools of the world are a long way from coping effectively with the challenge ( I won't call it a "problem") of teaching gifted children. Many gifted children are under-challenged in school. This paper, however, points out a different problem: the creatively gifted child might not just be ignored by the school (as many gifted children are) - but experience active hostility from it. This particular minority, therefore, deserves greater attention and protection. For, is it not so that it is the creatively gifted who ultimately have the most to offer our societies? They are also the ones who may be least well served by the educational systems that presently exist.



A good step forward would be simply to teach teachers to identify such creative children - and treat them well and welcome them. That, alone, would cure most of the ills that the creative put up with, in school.



(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.)

A child who pulls.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Of memory power and interest.

There are some people who think that the gift of a child like Ainan consists of nothing more than "memory power" and "interest". They think that to be a prodigious child and achieve at an adult level before the primary years are over, that nothing more is needed than a good memory and a liking for a subject. Clearly, such people are unfamiliar with the requirements of the subject Ainan is dealing with.

To be a chemist, one needs to be competent in spatial skills (the spatial arrangement of molecules is important); verbal skills (lots of complicated words and naming systems); mathematical skills (there are numerical problems to solve); memory skills (yes, there is a lot to know); logical skills (for the problem solving, some types of problem can be quite tricky); conceptual skills (understanding the physical concepts involved in Chemistry). Now, to be competent in Chemistry, a child needs to be good at ALL those areas. Memory, note, is just one of those areas. Of course, an interest in Chemistry is necessary too...but without a good level of native skill in all the areas, the child will not succeed in Chemistry, no matter how "interested" they are, or how good their "memory power" is.

I wonder, sometimes, at the lack of reasoning powers of some people that I have encountered on the internet. They think that the sum total of gifts required to be a young scientist is a good memory and an interest in science. I can tell you now that those two attributes alone will not get anyone very far at all in science. Primarily, science is not about memory, but about REASONING. Without highly developed powers of reason, no child, or adult, can expect to do well in science. Of all possible disciplines, the scientific ones tax reason above all other attributes. It is possible to be a savant, and know everything about a science - but such a person would most probably fail any and all exams that they are asked to do, because savants usually lack the ability to apply their knowledge with reason. Thus, knowledge alone (that is, memory alone) is not the answer. Memory alone, in science, is, in fact, nothing at all. It is basically a textbook - for a book is pure memory - but when is the last time a book passed an exam?

The other thing I observe in some of the comments I receive is that people are no longer familiar with the O level exam. It used to be taken by the upper 20% of students in the UK and all around the world. About twenty years ago, the UK dropped it, in favour of a much easier exam - the GCSE. Now, Ainan took his O level Chemistry when other children were still learning to read. This is not the product of "memory power" and "interest"...for those two characteristics do not satisfy the demands of the O level. Only a comparatively few of the marks go to knowledge alone, most of them go to what would be categorized as REASON. Almost all the children who now take GCSE would fare very badly in O level. Most of them would, in fact, fail. This is because it demands both more knowledge and more reasoning power, than the newer exam.

Since April last year, Ainan has been studying tertiary level Chemistry at Singapore Polytechnic. Again, those who characterize this as "memory power" and "interest" are being rather ignorant. Memory and interest will not even allow a student to grasp what is going on in the classroom. There is a good deal of reason and insight required just to have the faintest idea of what it is all about. Knowledge alone, will not allow anyone to cope with the demands of the situation. This should be obvious to anyone who knows what science is like at a tertiary level.

The real question behind all of this, however, is: why do some people try to characterize the gifts of children like Ainan as nothing more than "memory power" and "interest"?

The answer is probably that they feel threatened by such children and seek to diminish them. They seek to recast them not as gifted and intelligent, but as some variety of automatic recording machine devoid of intelligence. To my mind, that indicates either that the person who so characterizes them is jealous - or that they, themselves, genuinely have no understanding of what the demands of a scientific subject are. So, we are left to conclude that they are either jealous, or ignorant...perhaps both.

It is important to speak out against this characterization of gifted children as little more than pocket tape recorders, because this view of them, diminishes them to such an extent that they are no longer worthy of support or consideration. If such views are allowed sway, then more gifted children will go unsupported and will not receive the resources they need to blossom.

Ainan does have a good memory, but he has a better imagination, a better intuition, a better intelligence, than all the powers of his memory can muster.

Memory is not the answer to genius or giftedness of any kind - but it is a tool that the gifted use. Nikola Tesla was a great genius - but he also had a great visual memory, able to capture things in the finest detail. Mozart was famously able to recall long pieces of music at a single hearing and write them down. Charles Dickens when working as a young journalist, took notes only in his head (if I remember rightly). These three men were all geniuses - and they all had good memories. However, it would be entirely wrong to characterize them as a product of nothing but memory. A good memory was the LEAST of their gifts. It was their REASON and CREATIVITY that made them geniuses. Their memories were just tools to enable the other two faculties to have something to work on.

So, it is with certain gifted children. They have able memories, but these are just tools to allow their other gifts to have something to work with. If you want to know their true gifts - look to their capacities to reason and be creative.

(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.)

Was Sidis a child prodigy failure?

William James Sidis was an American child prodigy. He lived from April 1st (unfortunate date, I would have thought) 1898 to July 17th 1944. Thus, his life was of modest length and we should remember that when we assess his achievements. He was famed for his precocity and later for his withdrawal from society. His greatest gifts were in mathematical and linguistic pursuits. Some say he knew up to 200 languages by the time of his death; others estimate it to have been 40 or so. Either way, few linguists in history have come close to such a tally. His IQ was estimated to have been between 250 and 300, one of the highest in human history. Yet, the headline of his obituary in Time magazine, in 1944 was: "Prodigious Failure". What could have led such an organ to write such a shocking headline, upon a man's death?

Part of the problem was the way the press, of the time, liked to tear down people who stood out. They were not friendly to Sidis and did all that they could to diminish him. When he had an apparent nervous breakdown at about 20, they reacted not with sympathy, but ridicule. They jumped on him when he was jailed for a year and a half for being involved in a protest (what a wonderfully free country the USA was, at the time). Basically, they hounded him throughout his adult life. His reaction was to retreat from public life and try to live as quietly as possible, away from the venom of the journalists.

They mocked him when he wrote a book on vehicle transfers and tried to portray him as a failure. They gave the impression that it was the only book that he had written - and this became the public view of him. Yet, what was the truth? Well, William James Sidis, was busy writing and publishing works under pseudonyms throughout the quiet life he led doing menial jobs, such as operating calculating machines. There is a similarity in this to other geniuses. Einstein worked in a patent office: that is no great job for a great mind - but it did give him time to think. Perhaps Sidis similarly sought a job that would give him time to think.

Since his death, quite a few publications have been found to date: five books, four pamphlets, 13 articles, four periodicals (36 issues), 89 weekly magazine columns and one invention. There are also reports of other books: one on anthropology, another on philology, and works on transportation systems, all of which are presently lost. His most important works are "The animate and the inanimate" (1925) a work on cosmology, and "The Tribes and the States" (ca. 1935), a 100,000 year history of the red indian. In research for this latter book, he learnt the language of the wampum (written Native American history) and used the wampum as sources for much of what he wrote. Another book on Native Americans was Passaconaway, In the White Mountains, written when he was 18. He also wrote a book that included plans for a super city, under a pseudonym, which also advocated one-way street systems to avoid crashes. "Collisions in street and highway transportation."

He died at the age of 46 of a cerebral haemorrhage, like his father, Boris Sidis, had done, before him (at 56). His whole life was denounced as a failure by the press.

Take an impartial look at his output. Can it be said that a man who writes books on several different areas; who learns 40 to 200 languages - and uses that linguistic knowledge in his research, can be said to be a failure? It seems strange, to me, that he should be labelled so. His achievements were worthy - but the reaction to them was not. His written output was certainly a respectable quantity for a life of his length. It is, in fact, a puzzle, that he should have been treated so. It is almost as if the media of the day wanted to diminish him, to prove him wrong, to do him down - even at the cost of the truth. Apparently, his mother once remarked that she did not recognize her son, in his descriptions in the press - they bore no relation to the reality of his intellectual brilliance, at all.

What we see here, in fact, is not the failure of a prodigy, but the failure of the media and society to accept him. Sidis found himself unwanted - and so he retreated from the world. Yet, that didn't stop him thinking, privately, scribbling away and publishing anonymously. He probably didn't want to publish under his own name because, whenever he did so, he was jumped on by the press.

What would have happened had William James Sidis been welcomed by the society of his day? Doubtless he would have opened up and flourished and probably would have contributed much more than he did. Yet, even without that hypothetical circumstance, his output is decent, given his short life and there is no way an honest person, without an agenda, could possibly criticize him for it. In total he was supposed to have written at least a dozen books, most of them now lost. A dozen books in 46 years is actually quite a high output considering that they were non-fiction.

William James Sidis is a tale not of failure - but of what happens when the media turns against a person of great gift: they retreat from the world and their achievements become private ones, not public. Sidis achieved quite a lot - it is just that no-one of his day knew about it.

Rest in peace William James Sidis, child prodigy and productive, creative adult.

(If you would like to learn more of Ainan Celeste Cawley, a scientific child prodigy, aged eight years and four months, or his gifted brothers, Fintan, four years and nine months, and Tiarnan, twenty-six 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, niño, gênio criança, gifted adults and gifted children in general. Thanks.)

How some view the Gifted.

I stumbled upon a cartoon today that spoke, deeply, to me of how some people view the gifted.

The cartoon is a "Frank and Ernest" piece by Thaves. It features three Stone Age men. One of them is drawing what look like hieroglyphs on a slab of stone. The other two, clubs in hand, are watching him, mouths open.

The one at work on the stone turns to the others and says: "Look! I have just invented writing!"

One of the others replies rather sullenly: "Thanks a lot!...You just made everybody else in the world illiterate!"

I found this cartoon profound in its implications for how the gifted are often viewed.

In many cultures and nations of the world, the gifted are not welcomed, as one might hope. They are misunderstood, neglected, overlooked or even shunned. The motivations for doing this are various but, with the genius of great comedy, this cartoon has pinpointed one attitude, which underlies much of this response to giftedness. Instead of welcoming the creator of writing for the wonders it would do for humanity, they bemoan how bad, in comparison, it makes everyone else look. The same applies to the way the gifted are often treated.

A gifted person is someone who has the potential to make a significant contribution, in some way, in some field, for the greater good of all. Instead of seeing this, however, many people look on a gifted person and see only one thing: how bad it makes them look by comparison. This is a truly ungiving attitude that undermines the whole of society. In viewing gifted people in this way, such people tend to do what they can to oppose the gifted person, to stand in their way, or bring them down. Ultimately, they can reduce the chances of the gifted person ever reaching their potential. This is not theoretical speculation, for opposition to the gifted has happened, as far as I am aware, in all eras and in all nations, to some degree.

On seeing someone invent writing, the proper reaction is jubilation and congratulation. The proper reaction is to celebrate the advancement of mankind - and to do whatever one can to enable this step forward to succeed. So it is with the gifted. The proper reaction is to do whatever one can to ensure that the gifted person lives up to their promise. The proper reaction is to help them in whatever way one can.

That cartoon was written as a joke. Yet, how true it is, of the real world. I am left to wonder: how much better would the world be, if the reaction I advise, were predominant - rather than the reaction that the cartoon makes fun of? I rather think we would be living in a better world for all - and not just for the gifted. For a world in which the gifted flourish, is a world that is better for every human being. For there is one thing a gifted person will do, if permitted to flourish: make the world better, at least in some little way, by their contribution. Now, isn't that to the benefit of all?

(If you would like to learn more of Ainan Celeste Cawley, a scientific child prodigy, aged eight years and no months, or his gifted brothers, Fintan, four years and five months, and Tiarnan, twenty-two months, please go to: http://scientific-child-prodigy.blogspot.com/2006/10/scientific-child-prodigy-guide.html I also write of gifted education, IQ, intelligence, the Irish, the Malays, College, University, Chemistry, Science, genetics, left-handedness, precocity, child prodigy, child genius, baby genius, adult genius, savant, gifted adults and gifted children in general. Thanks.)

The flipside of reservation in the classroom.

There is a flipside to my previous post which I think I should explore.

Society can be most unkind to those it needs most. No-one is more necessary to the future progress of society than its most gifted members - yet, how are those gifted people, young and old, treated in the world's societies?

Well, many a gifted child finds out, quite quickly, through harsh social feedback that, in many societies, being gifted is about as acceptable as being a leper. The more outstanding a child, the more they tend to find that they are not accepted. Of course, there will be exceptions. There will be schools and perhaps even societies that are more welcoming but, in general, this is a global truism.

Ainan has learnt discretion. He has learnt to keep quiet with his thoughts, his observations, his knowledge, in a social setting. He has, it seems, absorbed the lesson that, to stand out, is to be excluded.

This is not as it should be. No gifted child should fear to be themselves and show themselves in public - yet, in so many parts of the world, they are. Giftedness is often something to be masked, to be hidden, to be denied, so that the gifted child might blend in and be accepted. Of course, in doing that, the gifted child is dying, day by day: they are denying themselves and, in so doing, are also destroying themselves. In time, they may forget who they once were. By submerging their gifts, over time, they may lose ready access to them. A child who doesn't express their gifts, is a child who is not developing them, either. The day may come when they truly do blend in - and what kind of victory is that? Their acceptance has been at the price of their true self.

No child, anywhere in the world, should have to hide who they are. I understand that that is an ideal statement that has little hope of being met by the reality of the world we live in, as it is today but, in time, the world may change. One day, the gifted children might be accepted as they are, in all classes, of all schools, in all aspects of life, in all nations, everywhere. I would like to see that world - but I may not live long enough to do so. Such deep change is slow to take hold in the world.

I coined a word, long ago, on this blog: "Giftism". I would say that Giftism is the last prejudice that still seems to be socially acceptable. It is time that it was no longer accepted.

Every gifted child should be free to be themselves, everywhere. They should not need to consider what is socially discrete - nor what is likely to win friends or lose them. They should just simply be allowed to be, free of any social encumbrance, hindrance or penalty.

Wouldn't that be a better world, than the one my son is adjusting to, in his ever-so-discrete way?

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

Society's obligation to the gifted

Does society have an obligation to the gifted? I think so. However, I also think that society has an obligation to all its citizens (and non-citizens) alike.

Each of us is born with a certain potential. Some will have more potential than others. A few will have great potential indeed. Yet, the sad truth is that few people reach the fullest of their potential - and this is largely the fault of the societies they are born into. Most societies are rather neglectful of the gifts of their people. Indeed, the more gifted the person, the more neglectful society tends to be. The common feeling is that the "gifted" have enough already and can do without the active support of society. Yet, this is not true, as anyone who has looked closely at the challenges facing the gifted knows. Indeed, the more gifted a child, the more unusual their needs become. So, in that sense, the need of the gifted is greater than that of their more average fellows.

Does any society truly recognize this situation? Well, it is hard to think of one that distinguishes itself in this sphere. There is a lot of room for improvement in every country of the world of which I am aware. The gifted are, by and large, neglected everywhere. Partly, this is the result of political forces: the gifted are the smallest of minorities and so, in terms of sheer numbers, they have little voting power and little democratic weight. It is easy, therefore, to shove their concerns to one side and ignore them, because doing so will never get a politician voted out of office. The ones the politician will pay heed to, therefore are the MAJORITY: the ordinary, ungifted, average voter types. Thus, the needs of the ordinary person will tend to be met, in democratic societies - but the needs of the extraordinary, the unusual, the prodigious and the profound will be ignored. These people, being rare, have no significant weight in society. They are, therefore, invisible to the democratic process.

This is very dangerous. For the very long-term health of each and every society is inextricably tied up with whether or not the most gifted people are able to flourish and make a contribution, in whatever area, to the best of their ability. If they are not, the whole society is weakened. The whole society will, ultimately, fail. So, even though the gifted are small in number, they must NEVER be ignored. To do so, is to ensure, with absolute certainty, the long-term decline of a society. Without the efforts of the gifted, there will be no progress, no advancement, just cultural and scientific stagnation.

So, society has an obligation to the gifted, precisely because it has an obligation to itself. A society must first ensure its own future health. This is actually synonymous with ensuring the future prospects of its gifted minority. Societies which ignore this, will not be societies for long.

(If you would like to learn more of Ainan Celeste Cawley, a scientific child prodigy, aged seven years and eleven months, or his gifted brothers, Fintan, four years and four months, and Tiarnan, twenty-one months, please go to: http://scientific-child-prodigy.blogspot.com/2006/10/scientific-child-prodigy-guide.html I also write of gifted education, IQ, intelligence, the Irish, the Malays, College, University, Chemistry, Science, genetics, left-handedness, precocity, child prodigy, child genius, baby genius, adult genius, savant, gifted adults and gifted children in general. Thanks.)

Jealousy at NUS High School

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(If you would like to learn more of Ainan Celeste Cawley, a scientific child prodigy, aged seven years and ten months, or his gifted brothers, Fintan, four years and three months, and Tiarnan, twenty months, please go to: http://scientific-child-prodigy.blogspot.com/2006/10/scientific-child-prodigy-guide.html I also write of gifted education, IQ, intelligence, the Irish, the Malays, College, University, Chemistry, Science, genetics, left-handedness, precocity, child prodigy, child genius, baby genius, adult genius, savant, gifted adults and gifted children in general. Thanks.)

On accepting the testimony of others

Today, I came across an exchange on a forum in which one mother rather hesitantly shared her experience of her child beginning to talk aged 15 weeks, or so.

Regular readers of this blog will not be surprised at this. However, some participants in that forum were: a couple denounced the mother as basically imagining it. Some were brutally sarcastic. One even called it physically impossible. It was quite disturbing to read the tone with which their comments were written: with an almost religious zeal to them, that, in their world, no such thing could be possible.

Now, what I find interesting about all of this is how closed-minded many people are. They seem to be reasoning solely from their own experience of the world - and not allowing for the possibility that other people have other experiences, abilities and potentials. All of the doubters seem not to know what the possibilities are for the most gifted of humans: they seem to think that all humans are much the same, that there is no great disparity between them. Nothing could be less true, of course - there are immense differences between people and that is what gives the human race vitality.

Basically, the key argument used by those who poured scorn on the mother was that they had not spoken at such an age, their children had not spoken at such an age - and they knew no child who had - therefore your child couldn't have either. I find this a marvellous display of impoverished thought. They have taken a sample of humanity amounting to their handful of a social circle - and they have generalized, from that, the entire properties and possibilties of the human race. It would make me guffaw were it not so sad in the effect it has on others. By thinking so, they prevent the gifted few among them, from being accepted or acceptable.

There are children who have talked at only a few months old - or less, as with mine. My post on the First Words of a Child Prodigy has attracted tales of such experiences from all over the world. Some children have crawled and walked very early too. These things happen. It makes no sense to denounce the mothers and fathers of such children for simply talking about their experiences.

Let us put this situation into more concrete terms. Imagine that the news media did not cover athletics. Imagine that athletics was something that happened quietly, in other peoples' houses, where no-one could see it. This is, of course, exactly the situation with exceptional child development. It is not something that, generally speaking, is ever given a mention officially.

Now imagine further that someone wrote on a forum that their son could run a hundred metres in 9.76 seconds, from a standing start. Imagine that they confided it hesitantly, seeking support for this unusual situation. Imagine then that quite a few people denounced the parent, saying that they must be hallucinating...or worse. Imagine that they had reasoned, well, my son can only run a hundred metres in 16 seconds - and the fastest runner I have ever met can do it in 14...so you must be lying or deceiving yourself. Now, we all know, in the real world, that there are people who can run a 100 metres in less than 10 seconds. There are, in fact, quite a few of them, in the history of sport. So, someone who made such a statement would probably not be denounced. Indeed, you might feel indignant about it if someone was so denounced. You would probably rush to their defence with supportive anecdotes. Yet, the strange thing is that, in the world of early child development, there are remarkable things happening all over the world - yet, if people speak about them, many a voice will rise and denounce the parents with words to the effect: "That was not the way with my children, so it could not be the way with yours!"

Why, when it comes to the raising of children, are so many people so small-minded? Why can they not allow for the full range and diversity of humanity?

I would like to see a day when a first-time mother seeking help for her gifted child is not denounced for what she shares - but supported warmly by a world community that understands and would like to help.

Looking at the kinds of things that get written on boards across the world, I fear I may have rather a long time to wait.

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

The gifted and the standardized classroom

In most parts of the world - the modern world, at least - education is all about standardization. The same "education" is given to all, irrespective of their actual need. Paradoxically, this emphasis on the "same for all" leads to a situation where many are ill-served by it.

Those who have some degree of impairment are lost in a standard classroom. Oddly, this situation is recognized and appreciated and those who are "left of the bell curve" usually receive some special attention.

In some classrooms, there will be a child unlike the others. They are usually quieter. Often, they are a little dreamy. Their work may be erratic - capable of perfection, but often showing signs of disinterest. Teachers often don't like them. This is frequently a "gifted child". So, this, then, is another constituency to be given special treatment? In an ideal world, yes - but in the real world, no. Usually, such children are neglected, and ignored, in various ways.

A large part of the problem is that the teachers misunderstand such gifted children. They think that the gifted child should hand in perfect work, all the time, must be top of the class, in all things - and must show rabid enthusiasm for all things "School". Then, just then, might they accept that a gifted child is, in fact, gifted - and needing special attention.

What the teacher sees instead is something more commonly like: "Oh he/she has such an attitude problem...they don't do their work, they look out of the window, all the time...I can never get his/her attention..." To such a teacher, the gifted child, is, in fact, a lazy or uncooperative child: they don't see the giftedness, they just see the failure to conform to their requirements.

This is the core of the problem and the core of the misunderstanding. The teacher ascribes to the gifted student character flaws that do not exist in the student. The teacher then takes an active dislike to the student, which causes a general, further deterioration in the quality of interaction with the gifted student. What is actually happening is that the gifted student has been placed in an unchallenging class. The student is being bathed daily in what, to them, seems like utter idiocy. The triviality and superficiality of the classroom instruction is such that they endure the profoundest boredom while sitting through class after class of totally empty nonsense. That is the perspective of the gifted child - or one gifted enough to feel this disparity so strongly. A gifted child in a normal classroom may feel rather like an adult going back to primary school: it would be really, really difficult to maintain one's attention for long, in such a situation. In the long term, it would be impossible to do anything but what a gifted child, in a standardized classroom, often does: sits quietly staring out of a window, ignoring the teacher, refusing to do the homework and generally trying to tune out of the dreadful experience.

It is easy for a teacher to fail to understand this. Instead, they look at such a student and get angry at them. So, what, then, does the gifted student think: "Not only is my teacher boring...but angry, too...what a nightmare!" This leads, of course, to a further lack of co-operation from the student - and a further escalation in dislike from the teacher...and so on.

The teacher may be a good teacher to normal children. This does not make them a good teacher to gifted children. The teacher may be an interesting teacher for normal children. This does not make them an interesting teacher for gifted children. The teacher should not take this personally. Yes, they are boring the gifted child - but that doesn't mean that they are intrinsically boring to the average child. So, the teacher should not be affronted (as, surprisingly, many of them are affronted by such a gifted child) - but should understand the situation. There is a mismatch between the gifted child and the standardized classroom. The only remedy is to remove the gifted child from the standardized class and place them in a more challenging one. The simplest way of doing this is to allow the gifted child to skip a few grades - or many - as the case may be. Alternatively, the school must provide individuated instruction - but so few will do that for a small, gifted minority.

Education may be standardized - but people are not. Just as education systems recognize the needs of the mentally challenged (with such initiatives as No Child Left Behind), so too, should they recognize the needs of the mentally gifted. Sadly, they don't. Tellingly, some countries which speak loudly of serving the needs of gifted students, in actual fact provide a completely inadequate response to them. They should know who they are, so I won't name them. I just want to see them start to actually do what they speak of. Then, we might have a world in which gifted children are allowed to thrive.

(If you would like to read of Ainan Celeste Cawley, a scientific child prodigy, aged seven years and eight months, and his gifted brothers, Fintan, four years and one month, and Tiarnan, eighteen 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, genetics, left-handedness, College, University, Chemistry, Science, child prodigy, child genius, baby genius, adult genius, savant, the creatively gifted, gifted adults, and gifted children in general. Thanks.)

Are gifted children offensive?

"Are gifted children too offensive?" These were the search words of a net searcher from Australia, a few days ago. In itself, it was one of the most offensive searches I have seen in a long time.

Australia is a country that has coined a phrase called the "tall poppies syndrome". This expresses the observation that, in certain quarters of the country, it has been traditional to cut down the "tall poppies". That means to attack the gifted among them. I understand that this is not the universal treatment of the gifted in Australia - for there are some programmes that address their needs - but the very fact that a culture actually has a phrase for this phenomenon is not actually a good sign - except of one thing, of course: that the society is open enough about its own nature to actually have labelled the situation. That, at least, is a step forward. In some societies, there is no name for it - but they do it anyway.

Clearly, though, this tendency still exists in Australia - otherwise the searcher above would never have searched as they have.

Let us look at what the searcher is actually saying. They are saying that gifted people offend them. How could this be? How can the possession of merit be, in any way, offensive? Only dark emotions could lead someone to be offended by giftedness. Jealousy, envy, spite and rage - these emotions are the ones that lead someone to be offended by the gifted. The question is which is more beneficial for society: giftedness - or jealousy, envy, spite and rage? Which do we want to encourage? Do we want to encourage the gifted in our society - or do we want to encourage those filled with dark emotions? Only one choice leads to a better world.

We all need to understand what is happening with regards to the gifted - how they are welcomed and how they are not. It is an issue for us all - because a society that enables its most gifted to flourish is a society that will flourish as a whole. Anyone who fails to see that, is unable to see the big picture. It should matter to all of us, if the gifted are not nurtured - for in failing to do so, the society as a whole is being undermined. Societies that do not nurture their gifted will inevitably fail to thrive. That is obvious.

(If you would like to read about Ainan Celeste Cawley, a scientific child prodigy, aged seven years and seven months, or his gifted brothers, Fintan, four years and no months, or Tiarnan seventeen months, please go to: http://scientific-child-prodigy.blogspot.com/2006/10/scientific-child-prodigy-guide.html I also write of gifted education, IQ, intelligence, child prodigy, child genius, baby genius, adult genius, savant, the creatively gifted, gifted children and gifted adults, in general. Thanks.)

Prodigies and their parents

It is remarkable how many people are willing to form an opinion on something, without knowing anything about it. Such is the case in the matter of prodigy. So many people have an opinion on it, but so few have actual experience of it. Had they experience of it, they would not think as they do and speak as they have - for experience would show them the error of their thinking.

Why do I write? Well, there are some remarkably ill-informed articles on the internet - actually from mainstream media. One article I came across (which I am not going to give a link to, so as not to further its readership), expresses the view that parents of prodigies push their children into being prodigious. Now, anyone who has actually ever been a parent would know that that is absolutely impossible. It cannot be achieved. No amount of determination on the part of a parent is going to turn a typical child into a prodigy. It simply cannot be done. Prodigious accomplishment requires so much native gift of such a refined nature that it cannot be inculcated by the effort of parental will. It is either there, or it isn't. Prodigy is rather like savant, in this respect. In neither case is it possible to create the state of mind that is prodigy or savant, by effort of will, or hard work. Either the child is a savant, or a prodigy, or the child is not. Anyone who had ever become acquainted with either type of child, personally, would know the impossibility of manufacturing that state of mind. It simply cannot be done.

Despite this self-evident fact that prodigy is a special developmental state that cannot be reproduced at will, there are journalists who insist on pushing the view that the parent of such a child has somehow pushed their child into that state. That is a really unhelpful view - for it furthers the misunderstanding that such parents face daily.

Prodigy is an emergent property of the child. It comes from the child. It does not come from without the child. The parent, observing the emerging prodigiousness of the child, has a great responsibility to ensure that that child receives the opportunities appropriate to their gift. This can be rather difficult. It is common for the parent to be met with incredulity and incomprehension when they try to explain their child's needs. Such stonewalling by the academic and social environment can only be worsened by those who retail the view that the child has been pushed into prodigiousness. It is a very damaging lie promulgated by people who know nothing of prodigy, personally.

The growth potential of a prodigy is immense. If they are supported the potential results of their intellectual growth can be very significant indeed. Many intellectual giants began life as prodigies. Such children need every support they can get: they do not need to be told that they are the result of "pushy parents". This is simply not so.

Sure, there are pushy parents in this world - but they don't create prodigies by being pushy. Pushy parents will create stressed children upon whom too high expectations have been laid. That, however, is a different issue. The parent of a prodigy is a different case. That is the parent of a child with very special abilities and very special needs. Such parents should be supported in their efforts to support their child - not thwarted by a society that doesn't understand.

If you are the parent of a prodigious child, you will often receive incomprehension over the origin of your child's gifts. Many will think of you as a "pushy parent". Know this, however: anyone who has experience of such children will know otherwise - that the child is prodigious, because that is the nature of the child. So, not everyone will misunderstand. Any parent of such a child will know the truth. Anyone who reads the words of such a parent - like me - will also know the truth. In time, perhaps, it will be common knowledge - and that will be a great day for prodigies and their parents.

(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 children and gifted adults in general. Thanks.)

When advice, is not advice.

Long ago, my brother Josh was starting out on his career in the financial world.

(I have referred to him elsewhere in one story that told of his savant-like gift for mental calculation. As I noted then, he has the gift, but he does not have a savant's impairment - but is, in fact, profoundly gifted.)

It was at this time that he was given what I have recently come to regard as a mischievous piece of advice. This supposedly helpful adviser was aware of Josh's ability to do complex calculations instantly and instinctively, in his mind, without reference to a calculator or computer. In the financial world, at that time, there were many roles which involved the manipulation of numbers, the analysis of numerical data and the ability to understand all things mathematical. There would seem, therefore, to be one obvious piece of advice that Josh could have been given...but what he was actually advised to do was something altogether different.

This adviser told Josh, as I heard the story, many years ago, to steer clear of any role that involved direct interaction with numbers. He argued that it would become unbearable, for one such as Josh, with his innate understanding of number, to be surrounded by numbers, all day. Josh, as a young man, just out of University, took this advice at face value - and duly steered clear of any role having such direct and considerable daily involvement with numbers.

Think about that for a moment. Josh had a unique gift for instant calculation and interpretation of numbers. He could do what no other could, numerically. The possible implications for effective outcomes for one such as that, placed in a situation which allowed the interpretation of numbers to have a real world effect, are boundless. Truly, he could have done something very interesting indeed. Yet, he was advised not to become involved with numbers. I wonder at the mischief behind such advice. Josh was being advised to avoid playing to his greatest strength, being advised to hide his talents, to operate in an area in which they would have no direct use. Such advice could only have been meant unkindly, I think - unless the adviser truly misunderstood the situation - but I think that unlikely.

Josh never did apply his numerical gift, professionally, as far as I am aware. He took the advice and let his calculatory gift lie dormant and rarely called upon. That is, I feel, a pity.

I tell this tale for an obvious reason. You or your children may have unusual gifts. At various times others, in a position of authority, may advise you or your children as to careers and courses. I would evaluate their advice with the story above in mind - and ask these questions:

Does the advice take note of the innate strengths of the child? Does the advice play to the strengths of the child - or does it ignore them? Is the adviser someone likely to be in competition at the organization with your child? If so, then look more closely still at the advice that is being given.

The gifted are not welcomed everywhere. Sometimes people feel threatened by their gifts - and do what they can to hide them, obstruct them or otherwise interfere with their expression.

Had Josh become directly involved with numbers, in an area in which the rapid understanding of their meaning and possibilities had real world implications, he would have become, in all probability, the best in his field, in the world - for no other could compete with him, in the matter of mental calculation.

In taking the advice he was given, he turned away from his most unusual strength, and played to others, instead - but I can't help but wonder what would have happened had he exercised a gift that no-one else could challenge him in.

Ensure that your child is never left to wonder such a thing, too: play to their strengths, whatever they may be.

(I should point out that Josh has led a fulfilling and interesting career, since. Yet, the point remains that there are applications for his unused gift that would have been truly remarkable.)

(If you would like to read about Ainan Celeste Cawley, Josh's nephew, 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 children, and gifted adults. Thanks.)

Genetic discrimination against the gifted

Racism is discrimination based on genetics. It is almost universally decried and fought against. Discrimination against the disabled is also, often, based on genetics - and universally fought against. Giftedness is genetically determined, and often the subject of discrimination - but who fights against that? Virtually no-one. "Giftism", as I have coined it, is both common and not thought of as a real issue. It is OK in many societies to be hostile towards the gifted; to deny them appropriate educational opportunity and generally deny them receiving what they need to receive - by simply ignoring them.

The gifted child is often resented by other children - and socially isolated as a result. That is a form of discrimination. Most schools who saw a child of minority race being shunned would get the school together and give them a talk about it - and try to persuade them to be more inclusive. No such talk will ever occur to protect gifted children from ill-treatment. Their situation is simply not recognized - or if it is, no-one, who has the power to do something about it, cares enough to act.

Discrimination of all kinds must be opposed in a civilized world. If your nation does not oppose discrimination against the gifted - then it is not yet fully civilized: there is at least one more step to take.

It is not just the intellectually gifted who receive this directed envy of their fellows. Children - and adults - gifted in other ways also receive it.

Brad Pitt, of all people, made a relevant comment on the issue, by being quoted as saying:

"I am one of those people you hate because of genetics."

So, even, the famous among us, feel it: the hate of others, simply because of who we are.

Really, everyone, everywhere, who understands this issue should do what they can to oppose it and make this world a more civilized, inclusive, place.

(If you would like to read about 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.)

Albert Einstein on gifted isolation.

The more gifted a child is, the more alone they tend to be.

This is not the product of a deficit, in them, generally, but a deficiency in others: the willingness to accept one of difference, in their midst. The more superior one's mind, to those around, the less likely one is to find sufficient common ground to build a solid friendship, of any kind, unless the gifted child (or gifted adult) ventures to be inauthentic and pretends to be other than they are, simply to win acceptance. Either path is a lost cause - for neither really wins true acceptance.

There is much that I can say on this, but I will keep this post brief and end it with Albert Einstein's observation on the gifted condition, as it applied to his rather special circumstance:

"It is strange to be known so universally and yet to be so lonely." They are among the saddest words a genius has ever spoken (second I would think, though, to Leonardo Da Vinci's last words, referred to in another post).

Einstein lived a significant portion of his life as a world famous man. He was instantly recognizable everywhere he went. There was no escaping the recognition in others' eyes: it was universal. Yet, he protested, in this frank comment, that the whole experience had done nothing to assuage his loneliness. He was still a solitary figure by most standards. He still stood alone in the social world, much as he had, at one time, in the intellectual world. What was it that made him so alone? Ironically, the very gift that had made him so famous, made him so different from others that he could not meet his match: there were too few people with whom he could really have any worthwhile engagement, for long.

To some degree, this is the fate of all who are most gifted - if their gifts are enough to set them truly apart. Even the best of social skills can only create a range of friendships that fail to satisfy the deepest needs of the most gifted - for they cannot, in truth, find a match for themselves in them. They must satisfy themselves with the shallows of life and the depths of their work.

I am not sure if there is any satisfactory way around this phenomenon. Perhaps, the most gifted should accept the situation for what it is, and find most fulfilment in their work. Oddly enough, that is exactly what most geniuses do. It seems they knew what to do all along.

Understanding the gifted child

Do adults understand gifted children? I have reason to doubt that they do so. Many adults interpret gifted children as they would an adult - but this leads to a failure to understand the dimension of a child's gifts, even if the child compares well to an adult.

Why do I say this? Well, because from what I have gathered on the net, there are adults who are dismissive of the achievements of gifted young children because they expect an educated adult to be able to do the same thing! The thinking that informs such a viewpoint constitutes a special class of mindlessness, for it shows no imaginative understanding of the child's perspective at all.

Let me give you an example. Say you have a baby. This baby has perhaps recently learned to walk and is less than a year old. You note that this baby has a strange habit of touching objects and saying a particular sound to itself, as it touches the first object, a different sound as it touches the second object and so on. It does this strange procedure with many different kinds of objects, but the sequence of sounds is always the same. After a while, you come to understand that the baby is counting and has, in fact, invented its own number system. Yet, you are further puzzled, because the baby is so young that it never occurred to you to try to teach it about numbers and it has never heard counting. So, this baby has invented counting for itself. To those who understand gifted children, this would indicate a truly astonishing degree of native mathematical gift and could foretell a great mathematical mind to come. Yet, to those class of people who like to attack and diminish gifted children (and they do exist - though they are characteristically ungifted adults, themselves - and so come from a position of not understanding what gifted children are, never having been one): this is dismissed by such words as: "Sure anyone can count."

Yes, this is true. Anyone can count - but how many people could have INVENTED COUNTING?
For that is what our baby example has done: it has invented counting. The dimension of this achievement is truly huge. Yet, many adults would fail to understand this, because they impose their understandings of an adult on the child. That is not how to understand a gifted child. One must look at the world from their perspective and see what they know and what they are proceeding to think, based on their known knowledge base. If a child is demonstrating the capacity to imagine areas of thought which are new to them - even if known to adults - then that child is showing great gift. Such children may have the capacity to think of entirely new ideas, in the course of their lives - and make a creative contribution to the world. For it is the same way of thinking that leads to new ideas, that led them to discover known ones, from the much lesser knowledge that they possess (which does not include the proposition they have come up with).

So, to understand a gifted child, imagine the world from their perspective - for then you will be able to truly see the dimension of their giftedness. It is only a foolish adult who fails to do this. Such an adult will never see gifted children for what they are: gifted.

(If you would like to read about Ainan Celeste Cawley, a scientific child prodigy, aged seven years and six months, and 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 children and gifted adults in general. Thanks.)

Intellectual stars and national success.

Today, I was privileged to have a conversation with a very intelligent Frenchman. I explored with him the matter of the French attitude towards intellectuals - and learnt that theirs is an enviable stance indeed.

Before I speak of what he spoke of, perhaps I should paint a little background to my perspective on his words. I grew up in Britain. This is a country where, in most schools, to be an intellectual is to suffer a kind of social disease. The gifted child will be almost universally ill-treated, if they have not developed sufficient social skills to deflect such attacks. It is a culture that made being gifted a burden indeed - and one that many children tried to shrug off, by dumbing down: they felt that they had to, because the social environment gave them no choice but to do so.

France, however, stands in contrast to this. The gifted child is, according to my French associate, respected by his fellows and, what's more, the gifted child's parents are well-looked upon, for having raised such a child. I was stunned by that. In many cultures, the parents of a gifted child are actually greeted with incomprehension and the view that they have somehow pushed their child into this "gifted" state. The idea that the parents would actually be admired for their child was a new one for me.

It didn't end there. Throughout French society there is a pervasive respect for the intellectually gifted. Intellectuals actually become media stars. They are listened to with respect and their opinions sought on every matter under the sun. To be an intellectual in France, is often also to be a public figure of some standing. How odd. I don't remember Britain being like that, in the main. Intellectuals did not have the prominence that say, a footballer would have, or a Page Three model (a "topless" model), would have. In Britain it was the "celebrity" who had a sway over the people - not those people who actually had a mind to form opinions and a will to speak them.

France actually has celebrity philosophers. That, in itself, says all that we need to know about the situation of the intellectual, in that culture.

The world would be a better place, in every way, were intellectuals received with the welcome, everywhere, that they receive in France. For a start it could begin in the world's schools. If they were like French ones, there would be no jealousy of the gifted child, from their peers - but a widely held respect. That would surely change the life stories of many gifted children for the better.

Yet, the benefits wouldn't stop there. I believe that every nation that adopted this positive attitude towards its gifted, would benefit, thereby. Their cultures would flourish and deepen, their nations would prosper. Why? Because the best among them would no longer have to hide their gifts; they would no longer have to "dumb down" to enable themselves to fit in: they could soar, instead, to the heights they were born to achieve. They could finally, fully become. How much better a world that would be.

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

On disability and ability: society's obligation

It is taken as obvious that the mentally disabled should receive assistance in developing the skills and behaviours necessary to allow them to function in society. Yet, it is seen as controversial, in some countries, to make any special provision at the opposite end of the ability spectrum. Is this rational?

What does it mean to be disabled? It means one's abilities are different from the norm, in the sense of being lessened. What does it mean to be gifted? It means one's abilities are different from the norm, in the sense of being heightened.

You will note that the situations have a logical identity and a logical difference. It is the identity to which I wish to draw your initial attention. With both the disabled and the gifted, there is an essential difference from the norm. These people are not typical of humanity in general - and it is their lack of typicality that requires that they be given special attention. The general provision of society for its members is equally inappropriate for both classes of individual: the disabled and the gifted (or the enabled, as one might call them).

There is a view, often stated, though never intelligently held, that the gifted do not need special provision because they are MORE able than others. This view fails to understand the ways in which extreme ability can be a kind of disability, too. The truly gifted child will be set apart by their gifts, from those around them. They are likely to be isolated not only in being mentally different to those around them, but also in terms of being rejected, by them. They are unlikely to fit in. They may have communication difficulties. They may have difficulty in both being understood and in understanding those they meet in the everyday world. Think about my last four sentences. They could have been written about a mentally disabled person - and they would still hold true. The gifted and the disabled both a share a communication gap - they both share a social disability. To be in either state is to be divorced from society - and this is a burden whether it is at the lower or upper ends of the spectrum. The difference, in many societies, is that the burden of the disabled is recognized by all, but that that of the "enabled" or gifted, is recognized only by those who have experienced it for themselves, in most cases.

To both constituents, the gifted and the disabled, a humane society must make a special effort to reach out to and accommodate them and their needs. The key phrase is "humane society". So many voices on the internet seem to be espousing an inhumane, uncaring, cold society - well, I for one, would not vote for such a society.

Both kinds of people need special help in fully integrating into society: the disabled with basic functioning, the gifted with, if you like, "optimal function" - finding the niche that best expresses their abilities and least encumbers them.

A society that ignores either constituent is at the very least inhumane - but it is also something else: it is a society which will fail for obvious logical reasons. A society which does not enable the disabled to function, is one that will be burdened by them; a society which disables the enabled by not allowing them to function at their best - is one that will never enjoy the benefits of such people in their midst.

I will write more on this in future, for otherwise this post would become too long.