Living in a one-dimensional world.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On "All-rounders" and specialists

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How to educate a child: prodigies and the gifted

My earlier post on whether child prodigies should be given the chance to develop their skills has attracted an interesting comment. Should a child develop his or her strengths - or bring up their weaknesses? Is balance important in the modern world?

The answer depends very much on what the child is going to do with their life. If the child shows great passion for something, allied to great ability and this passion remains steady over a long period, it is likely that that passion will turn into their adult work. In this case, building their strength can only be good: it will make them more effective in their chosen discipline or disciplines.

Ainan shows a passion for science, in particular Chemistry (but he has a general interest in Science, too). I would be very surprised if he did not at least spend part of his adult life as a scientific researcher. He already has much of the knowledge and he certainly has the aptitude for investigation. He is already a scientist in every important respect. All he needs now are to further strengthen his knowledge - and get those "no-one will believe in you if you don't have them" credentials. I don't know how many years it will take - but theoretically, it might not have to be that many. He could be a working scientist at rather a young age.

What, however, about developing other areas?

This is already a problem for me - and for him. I see that he has aptitude in other things - but he has less interest and motivation in other things. Ainan is good at music. He became a pianist at six - but has since lost interest. He was even composing music. Yet, that has been shelved for his scientific interests. He is very good at Art - and was able to draw 3 D perspective drawings at 3 or 4 years old. Very mature. Perhaps that will be his second fiddle: just like Einstein had his violin, maybe Ainan will have his Art.

Now, at this time of his life, his drive is to grow scientifically. It would be foolish to try to suffocate that wish in the interests of imposing "balance".

In modern life, balance is not as important, in terms of education, as it used to be in earlier days, before society became specialized. Now, we hire people on the basis of single strengths and a genius may only have one towering strength (though as intellects they are often good at several or many things, they will naturally focus on one, in most cases, as it aligns with their passions).

I have great balance in my own gifts and experiences - but as I have posted before, many gifts are not necessarily better than one. The division of attention between them, weakens the overall effect. There are many things I can do well - but my son Ainan knows more Chemistry than I do - and he is only seven. That is despite the fact that I took Chemistry up to my first year at Cambridge.

Perhaps there are roles in life in which great balance of gifts is appreciated and of use. But most roles in modern life are increasingly specialized. Here, a "balance of gifts" is largely wasted effort, since they will never find their proper outlet. It is the individuals with great individual strengths that find their proper match and welcome in an increasingly specialized society.

So, for those parents worried about their children focussing on their strengths and ignoring their weaknesses I would say this. If your child learns faster in their strengths - and learns with difficulty in their weaknesses, it is logic alone that they will go further, in terms of reaching greater heights if they are left to grow their strengths, than if they are forced to bolster their weaknesses.

There is one caveat. There should not be any imbalances that lead to ineffectiveness. Everyone should be able to write halfway decently. Everyone should be able to handle reasonable maths etc. There should be no absence of basic skills.

Therefore there are two possible models: the "balanced" individual with many well developed skills. This person will have many choices and probably a varied career. Then there is the specialized individual with a few, perhaps one, great strength. This person will have a focussed career but may, in the modern world, find that success comes readily. They may, after all, be the best person for the job.