The article below was written as an article intended for The Star newspaper, Malaysia. They, however, declined to publish it. So, too, did the New York Times and the Sunday Times, so decline. The latter two newspapers were not even polite enough to reply - though the Star was, at least.

I rather think that the key idea proposed within this article found disapproval with these news organs...they couldn't bring themselves, it seems, to air my suggested solution to the problem I raise and discuss. To me, that seems closed minded. My solution should, at least, be brought out into the open for discussion. Having been rejected by three newspapers, however, I think it is best if I, at least, publish this article on my blog, so that it might, at least, get a small readership...which is better than no readership at all.

If any newspaper does wish to run the article...just ask me, and I shall arrange it. Thanks.

Aaron Swartz and the failure to value genius.

By Valentine Cawley

It is striking to note that, throughout history, geniuses are more often valued dead, than alive. In life, a genius can expect much opposition, not a little hostility and a complete absence of support. Yet, in death, “Humanity” finds it in itself to heap praise on the corpse of the now unthreatening genius.

So, too, it is in the nature of genius to be apart from the mainstream; to hold different viewpoints, which, though unique at first, might, in time, become commonplace, if the genius’ ideas are ever accepted. Yet, during the course of their working lives, it is common for geniuses to strive against the “system”, to be ever seeking change, and improvement  - revolution even. It is this tendency which, of course, leads on many occasions to the persecution of geniuses, their loss of liberty and even loss of life.

What can a genius do for society? A genius, properly enabled to do their work, can bring into being a new world, a new way of doing something old, a new science, a new technology and a new culture. A genius can give us a world we would never know without them. One genius is more valuable to a society than millions of ordinary workers – because those ordinary workers will never bring anything new into being – they only ever work with what already exists and the boundaries that have already been laid out. A genius should, therefore, be treasured, however awkward it might be, at times, to have them around.

The recent case of Aaron Swartz, the internet pioneer, writer, computer programmer, political organizer and internet activist brings into focus issues surrounding the attitude of society, to genius. As many of you will know, he committed suicide on January 11^th, 2013, seemingly in order to escape from a draconian prosecution by the US government, for a rather odd “crime”: downloading over 4 million articles, which were accessible free, to him, from the JSTOR database, from an unlocked closet at MIT. He had done this because he objected to JSTOR charging significant fees for the articles, since he believed this restricted access to them. He had a point, for I argued similarly, in a journal article I published entitled: “An analysis of the ethics of peer review and other traditional academic publishing practices”,  in the International Journal of Social Science and Humanity. (http://www.ijssh.org/papers/36-H058.pdf) I found that it was unethical to charge for academic articles, since this acted so as to limit the distribution of knowledge, for the purpose of profiteering. Thus academic publishers, are making money at the expense of human progress.

For Swartz’s action in bringing attention to this issue, he had faced up to 35 years in prison and a 1 million US dollar fine. For a 26 year old, potentially looking forward to a life in prison, until his sixties, this must have seemed an overwhelming prospect to Aaron Swartz. Rather than face such an awful prospect, he appears to have chosen to end his life, by hanging.

Every death is a loss to the world. Yet, Aaron’s life was not a typical one. At just 14, he contributed to the creation of RSS, used to feed updates of blogs to the world. His code is now ubiquitous. He founded Infogami which was merged with Reddit. He participated in the creation of the Creative Commons license and he organized the Internet, to oppose and defeat SOPA (STOP ONLINE PIRACY ACT). Along the way, he also highlighted and spoke out against President Obama’s “kill list” – which perhaps did not make him popular in certain quarters in his own nation.

To many, Aaron Swartz was a genius – and he was certainly prodigious as a programmer. By his death, the world has lost all he would ever have done – and there is no guessing what that might have been. Thus, the future is undoubtedly impoverished by his passing. Had he lived, the world yet to be, would have been fashioned and shaped, to some degree by this young man’s thought. Now, none of that will ever be. We have all lost, by his death – not just his immediate family.

Was it sensible of the American government to pursue Aaron Swartz so harshly? Was a potential 35 years in prison a reasonable response to downloading some academic journal articles, which JSTOR has now made free to view, in any case?

It is clear that this sledgehammer approach of the US government to the case of Aaron Swartz, has cost America and the world far more than it stood to gain by punishing him, so aggressively. The treatment of Aaron Swartz calls to mind the treatment of other geniuses, throughout history. Alan Turing, for instance, was prosecuted by the British state, for being a homosexual. His penalty was chemical castration. Two years after his sentence, he apparently committed suicide by cyanide poisoning. Alan Turing was a computing genius, who was one of the founders of the modern era of computing. His life work changed the world. Also, by cracking the German Enigma code, he may very well have changed history too, ensuring the triumph of the Allies, and the defeat of the Nazis. The British thanked him by persecuting him and prompting him to end his own life. The cost to humanity of his loss is truly incalculable, since there is no telling what contributions he would have made had he lived out the remainder of his natural life, instead of dying at 41, by suicide.

Then, in the field of literature, there was Oscar Wilde, a writer of genius, who was also prosecuted for his sexual orientation. The two years he spent in prison utterly broke his health, and led to his death three years later. The world had lost another genius at the age of just 46. Again, we are left with the certainty of the world’s loss, but not knowing how great that loss was, for we shall never see what he never lived to write.

These three examples make clear that societies, in general, do not value genius enough, nor consider the consequences of persecuting them. The rather pedestrian individuals who take it upon themselves to prosecute them do not take into consideration the consequences for society, of those prosecutions.

This leads me to propose a principle by which society should moderate the punishments it metes out to individuals, for crimes.

The principle of least harm to society:

“No person should be given a punishment for a crime, that would cause more harm or loss to society, in consequence, than the crime itself caused.”

In a more extreme form, this could arguably be refined to: “No person should be punished for a crime in such a way as to cause harm to society, thereby.”

Thus, it can be seen, in the cases of geniuses, it does not make sense for a society to jail a genius for long periods, thereby losing the fruits of all their potential work in that period, if the creative work lost, would have been of greater value than the harm their crime caused society. What this means, in practice, is that it is foolish for society to punish geniuses illiberally, for most crimes, because, in effect, society is thereby punishing itself, by depriving itself of works of genius. To punish the genius, through extended jail sentences, is to inflict loss and harm on society itself. That is simply not a rational response to the crimes of genius.

As for my more extreme version of the principle of least harm to society, this may be wiser, since even short sentences can destroy a genius.

The examples of Alan Turing and Oscar Wilde illustrate how even short sentences can break the health of geniuses, provoking an early death, by natural means or even by suicide. Humanity lost greatly by the deaths of Turing, Wilde and Swartz. Reflecting on their wasted potential, we should be moved to reconsider the ways in which people of special talent to society are punished, should they commit what is considered a crime, in their day. It is senseless to deprive the world, of the fruits of their genius, simply because society wishes to make an example of them – as was clearly the case with Aaron Swartz and, arguably, Wilde and Turing.

Should a person of genius commit a crime, a way should be found to punish them, if punishment is thought necessary, that still allows them to do their creative work and does not limit, in any way, their creative potential. Society needs geniuses far too much, to act so as to snuff out either their lives or potential.

It should also be remembered that geniuses are often at odds with society and non-conformist, even rebellious in their actions. This attitude can lead them into trouble. Society should be understanding of their nature when they do court trouble, in this way. It should not punish them. The US military, for instance, was very understanding with Richard Feynman, the physicist of genius, when he was working on the Manhattan project to build the first atom bomb. He had the hobby of breaking into military safes containing top secret documents. He did it for sport. The military, however, did not punish him, but tolerated this behaviour, understanding that he was just playing. It is a pity for Aaron Swartz and us all, that MIT was not so understanding, when Swartz downloaded those documents. That lack of tolerance has cost the world a young genius. Never more should a genius be lost in similar circumstances. Let there be tolerance for the differences that make geniuses what they are – and perhaps, make them occasionally cross the line of what society would normally accept. The cost to society is too great, if this accommodation can’t be made. Let us be wise enough to do so.

Posted by Valentine Cawley

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

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

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

If you would like to see an online summary of my academic achievements to date, please go here: http://www.getcited.org/mbrz/11136175To learn more of Ainan Celeste Cawley, 10, or his gifted brothers, Fintan, 7 and Tiarnan, 5, please go to: http://scientific-child-prodigy.blogspot.com/2006/10/scientific-child-prodigy-guide.html

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Our editing, proofreading and copywriting company, Genghis Can, is athttp://www.genghiscan.com/This blog is copyright Valentine Cawley. Unauthorized duplication is prohibited. Use only with permission. Thank you.) 

Definition of a genius.

Here is my thought on the matter.

Definition of a genius: a genius is someone who is only ever appreciated after their death.

Now, that is sad...for being too often true. What a society we humans have created.

Posted by Valentine Cawley

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

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

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

If you would like to see an online summary of my academic achievements to date, please go here: http://www.getcited.org/mbrz/11136175To learn more of Ainan Celeste Cawley, 10, or his gifted brothers, Fintan, 7 and Tiarnan, 5, please go to: http://scientific-child-prodigy.blogspot.com/2006/10/scientific-child-prodigy-guide.html

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Our editing, proofreading and copywriting company, Genghis Can, is athttp://www.genghiscan.com/This blog is copyright Valentine Cawley. Unauthorized duplication is prohibited. Use only with permission. Thank you.) 

Van Gogh's suicide and Fintan's reaction

Yesterday, Fintan learnt of the life story of Vincent Van Gogh. He was very interested to hear about how this famous painter had lived. He rather liked the art, too.

When his mother told him about Van Gogh cutting off his ear, he was stunned and appalled that anyone could do such a thing. His reaction was distinctly emotional – as are most things with Fintan. Yet, that is nothing compared to how he reacted when he learnt that Vincent Van Gogh had eventually given up on his life and shot himself. This time he was greatly puzzled.

“Why wasn’t it enough for him to know that his paintings were nice?”, he asked, completely unable to accept Van Gogh’s act as a reasonable one.

Why, not, indeed? One day, no doubt, Fintan will understand how a life of non-acceptance and of “failure”, could wear a man down. Evidently, Van Gogh’s own view of his work was not enough to sustain him against all that negative weight. Perhaps, in fact, he may have imbibed some of what other people thought of his work and no longer been able to see how great it was. If everyone fails to appreciate one’s work, perhaps, in time, it is quite easy to start to lose an appreciation of one’s own work. Then again, even if one knows one’s own work to be wonderful, but NO-ONE IN THE WORLD thinks so, too, that must be too hard to bear, after a while.

Van Gogh did not kill himself. The society in which he lived and failed to appreciate him, did. Had his immediate environment appreciated him and his work, he would, most probably have lived out a full life and painted a lot more than the 900 works I read once, that he had painted in his life. So, ironically enough, the world lost thousands of paintings, because it didn’t appreciate him, whilst he lived. We all, therefore, lost because of this – not just Van Gogh, who lost many years of life.

There is a lesson in this, of course. We should not be too quick to dismiss the works of any creator for their novelty or strangeness, or difference from current perceptions. Anyone whose work is new is trying to show us all a new way of seeing the world. One day, that view will be better appreciated than it is at first, once people have had time to become accustomed to it. Thus, it is, we should habitually forestall negative comment and just observe carefully the new works – and should encourage the creator with judicious words meant to support them in their struggles to bring their inner world, into the outer one. One should never do what was done to Van Gogh: scorn his works, ignore them, underestimate them, for the lack of understanding them.

In fact, it should be that all who might have genius, should be supported in their endeavours by the world around them. It is too costly to us all, not to do so. For if a true genius is not supported, is scorned and spurned, discouraged and ignored, much as Van Gogh was, then it is altogether likely that they might cease to produce their works, or, end much in the same way as Van Gogh. A genius might, thereby, lose their life, but we all lose a world that shall never be fully known: the one within the mind and heart of the genius who could no longer bear life.

There are quite a few examples of geniuses, or at least highly creative people who taken their own lives, whilst still relatively young – often for just the same type of reason as Van Gogh presumably did: despair at the reception to their work. John Kennedy O’Toole, for instance, killed himself shortly after the rejection of his famous work, “The Confederacy of Dunces”. He was just 31. How much more would he have written had he lived a full life? Had he not been rejected, he probably would have done so.

Gatekeepers to “publication”, or the equivalent in each creative world, whether they be publishers, agents, movie producers, or art galleries, should be kinder to creators, more encouraging, more accepting and more open-minded. They should make an effort to see value in the new, quality in the different – and not impose too narrow an aesthetic point of view. The loss can be too great, if they are blunt in their criticism or harsh in their assessment. In the creative worlds, narrow-mindedness kills and short-sightedness is deadly.

What is forgotten by gatekeepers, is that the artist, of whatever kind, will have invested much of themselves in their work. Thus a rejection of the work, is a rejection of the core of the artist: their inner depths are being spurned. The pain of such rejection is enough to kill many artists. They should not suffer in this way. Creative work must be assessed with greater gentleness, insight, compassion and humanity. Though, it must be observed that these qualities are often lacking in gatekeepers, who themselves lack creative ability and, perhaps, lack a true understanding of what artists go through.

Do you want to know who killed John Kennedy O’Toole? Not O’Toole himself. Robert Gottlieb of Simon and Schuster provided the motivational trigger, by rejecting The Confederacy of Dunces, on the basis that it needed extensive revision and was “pointless”. Eventually, Dunces was published essentially unaltered by Louisiana State University Press in 1980. It went on to sell 1.5 million copies and O’Toole received a posthumous Pulitzer Prize for Fiction, in 1981. It would seem that Robert Gottlieb didn’t really know what he was talking about. However, his erroneous views killed a great writer.

Sadly, it was O’Toole’s mother, Thelma’s, constant efforts to publish his work after his death, that got it published. She saw it as a means to prove her son’s talent. She was right. Simon and Schuster were wrong.

So, when faced with the work of a new writer, artist, musician, film-maker, poet, scientist or the like, don’t be a killer critic…be a kind-hearted supportive opener of the way – and do what you can to bring new work to the world, instead of doing your best to persuade artists and other creators that life is not worth living.

(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 at http://www.genghiscan.com/

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

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.)

Are geniuses ever satisfied?

What is it that drives a genius ever on, to deeper understandings, greater works, more complete statements? I would say that one key attribute is dissatisfaction.

Yet, dissatisfaction at the work already achieved, has a dark side to it, too. Perhaps the genius is unable to fully appreciate their own work, so high are their aims and, perhaps, so low are their achievements, in comparison.

I am led to the words of two great geniuses to support this view that they appear dissatisfied with their works.

Albert Einstein once said: "If I had my life to live over again, I would be a plumber."

Surely, only great dissatisfaction with what he had achieved - or the life that he had had to lead to achieve it - could ever have motivated such words. Looking back over his life, his personal assessment was that a life of manual labour would have been preferable.

Another, too, who expressed dissatisfaction with his creative life, was Leonardo da Vinci - whose last words I have elsewhere recorded: "I have offended God and Man by doing so little with my life."

These words, too, point to an essential dissatisfaction with his achievements: somehow, great though they appear to others, he felt that they didn't make the grade.

Are we to assess a genius on their own unachievably high standards - or on the external standards of others looking on, at their works. I think the latter is healthier. Einstein and da Vinci may not have thought much of their work - but to the rest of us, their lives seem little short of miraculous.

A genius may need that sense of dissatisfaction to drive them on to greater things. It may, in fact, be a key attribute of great minds - but we must not let their self-assessment provide us with our view of their works. The judgement should be by the standards of the rest of society - otherwise we may not be able to see geniuses for what they are at all. It doesn't seem that they see themselves as we see them. That, in itself, is interesting.

Perhaps a genius needs society to tell them just how significant their works are. That society may, of course, be one of a different time, since some geniuses are not recognized in their own times. Whenever it is, however, society should not be shy in rewarding a genius with recognition - because, more than others, perhaps, they need this positive feedback - since so many of them seem to be unable to see it in themselves.

(If you would like to read of 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 adults and gifted children in general. Thanks.)