Imperial wealth in the eyes of a child.

Today, we watched Dan Cruickshank’s Adventures in Architecture. This episode concerned, among other structures, The Catherine Palace, the Rococo summer palace of the Russian Tsars.

Tiarnan, five, watched as the astonishing interiors of this unbelievably ornate palace paraded across the TV screen. Gold and amber, and every possible variation on the word “opulent”, assailed our eyes. Not that alone, but the sheer vastness of the place, was astonishing, with one corridor being 325 metres long, before the Empress could be reached. Throughout it all, Tiarnan watched in silence. Finally, however, he spoke up.

”It is no good to live there.”, he began, quietly, with an authority out of proportion to his size.

All eyes turned to him for explanation.

“It is not a good place to play.”, he elaborated, his eyes flicking to the screen where the story of splendour continued to unfold. “Too much glass.” He looked utterly unimpressed with the wealth on display. Indeed, he seemed to think it silly: after all, who would build a house that couldn’t be played in?

“Should Daddy rent that house, to live in?”

He looked across at me, his eyes growing all very serious and shook his head, slowly, from side to side.

He had no words, but his expression was enough.

Even when given the option to live in such a palace, Tiarnan would choose not to.

At that point, Fintan piped up: “Choose somewhere else, Daddy. Not there.”

So it was not just Tiarnan who thought The Catherine Palace an inappropriate place to live – even Fintan thought so too.

This moves me to reflect: I wonder what little Tsars thought of growing up in such surroundings? Did they find them impractical, too? Or were they too busy being alone, in a very fundamental way, to care about where they lived?

It is lucky my kids don’t feel the need to live in a several hundred metre long palace. In fact, they tell me they rather like condominiums...a much more affordable accommodation.

It is funny to see my kids’ response to Imperial wealth. It left them rather unimpressed. This would have surprised the Empress Elizabeth – for her palace was expressly designed to awe and impress with her divine status. Well, in the case of my children, at least, she failed. It left them wondering at the silly impracticalities of it all.

Do my kids see more truly what matters, than some adults do? I would think most adults would be awed by The Catherine Palace and by the very thought that it was once someone’s home. Yet, if my children are any guide, kids see it very differently. They see it as a place barren of any fun...a place that cannot be played in. In a way, I think my kids see something adults miss. All that majestic wealth might impress some...but does it bring personal joy? Fintan and Tiarnan certainly thought not. What do you think?

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.)

The legend of Macaulay Culkin

Macaulay Culkin is famous, still, long after he has actually done anything to be famous for. Now, there is nothing wrong with that, since reputations often endure long after that which prompted them. Unusually, perhaps, though, compared to those others whose reputations have endured long after their cause (like certain pop/rock stars who no longer perform or compose, but still hit the gossip columns), Macaulay Culkin is famous because of what he did as a child. He is now 30. However, Macaulay Culkin has not been wasting his time, in his adult years. He has been dating Mila Kunis. I learnt this, today, on hearing that he had broken up with her.

Now the question is: what do you think people would be searching for, on hearing that Macaulay Culkin had broken up with Mila Kunis? Perhaps they might be asking questions like: did Macaulay Culkin have any children with Mila Kunis? Or: “Why did Macaulay Culkin break up with Mila Kunis?” Or “Did Mila Kunis dump Macaulay Culkin or vice-versa?” Or: “Did Macaulay Culkin cheat on Mila Kunis?”. Now these are all fair questions in the aftermath of the Mila Kunis breakup. However, that is not what interests people about Macaulay Culkin. Today, on my blog, the whole world is telling me just what they want to know about Macaulay Culkin. Rather astoundingly, fully 75% of searches arriving on my blog today, concern Macaulay Culkin. Yet, they are not searching about what you might consider reasonable, given his life events, today. Everyone is searching about Macaulay Culkin’s wealth.

The searches today, consist entirely of such humane gems as: “Is Macaulay Culkin rich?” “How much is Macaulay Culkin worth?” “What is Macaulay Culkin’s net worth?” “Is Macaulay Culkin wealthy?” “How much money does Macaulay Culkin have?” “Does Macaulay Culkin still have money?” “How does Macaulay Culkin make a living, now?” “What does Macaulay Culkin do for a living, now?” etc etc. Not one person, arriving on my blog, is interested in anything else about Macaulay Culkin, apart from his net worth/riches/wealth/money/assets.

To my mind, this does appear to indicate that people don’t think of Hollywood and its acting products, to be particularly meaningful. At least, the ones that Macaulay Culkin appeared in, don’t appear to interest them. No-one is interested in Macaulay Culkin’s acting achievements: they are only interested in the money they assume he got from them. No one is interested in whether Macaulay Culkin is an interesting guy, whether he is intelligent, sensitive, creative, caring, kind, loving, or anything else for that matter. All they care about is whether Macaulay Culkin is rich. Now, I don’t know whether Macaulay Culkin will ever read my blog (doubtful, given the vastness of the internet ), but if he does, I would like him to consider the evidence of my blog searches, and urge him to a certain caution, in his assessment of the character of those he meets. If he does not already do so, of course. For my blog suggests that most people, now, are only interested in one thing: Macaulay Culkin’s money.

By the way, for those interested in his supposed net worth, I saw an estimate a couple of years back saying he had 30 million US dollars to his name – so yes, he probably does have quite a lot of money. However, I am sure he has much else to recommend him too…so if you meet Macaulay Culkin, why not pause to find out what he is like as a PERSON and not a BANK ACCOUNT.

Personally, I find it rather disturbing that the interest in Macaulay Culkin should be so one dimensional. Of all the qualities a human being can have and which can inspire interest, the amount of money they have should be somewhere near the bottom of the list. To the modern net searcher, however, it seems to be at the top. What kind of world have we created that it should be so? What kind of people are there in this modern world of ours? Could they get any more one dimensional themselves? (I ask because a person reveals their depths, through the shallowness of their concerns.)

I wish Macaulay Culkin well on finding a new girlfriend – preferably one who does not search the internet for his net worth: poor rich guy!

(If you would like to learn more of Ainan Celeste Cawley, 10, or his gifted brothers, Fintan, 7 and Tiarnan, 4, this month, please go to: http://scientific-child-prodigy.blogspot.com/2006/10/scientific-child-prodigy-guide.html

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

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.)

Patrick Swayze's death: a note on what is important.

Patrick Swayze has died. He was rather too young, of course, at 57, but it had seemed rather inevitable, recently, given the seriousness of his pancreatic cancer.

At times like this, it can give comfort to those loved ones he has left behind, to realize how full a life he lived - and I am fairly sure he lived a full one. He was also successful in his chosen field and has left a substantial body of work. So, perhaps, his loved ones will draw nourishment from that. How he touched those he knew, how rich was the life he lived with them, is what is important. So, too, how fulfilled he felt in his work. I think, regarding that, that he must really have loved being an actor - because he took the lead role in The Beast, after his diagnosis and so chose to spend some of his final months working. That, in itself, tells us that, in his own view, he lived life the right way.

The reason I have chosen to write this post, however, is because of my surprise at what some of the searchers to my blog have searched for today. Some have used the terms: "Patrick Swayze net worth" and "What was Patrick Swayze worth" (this latter search was from Yonkers, in New York...I didn't check where the other was from.). I find these searches tasteless and really off the mark. The man has just died and all they are interested in, is the size of his estate. His wealth didn't matter much when he was alive - and it matters even less now that he is dead. What matters is did he live well, did he fulfill himself and did he share a good life with those he loved? Nothing else matters...certainly, not how many greenbacks he managed to accumulate. Really, I often find myself surprised - even shocked - at how shallow the world is becoming.

Rest in Peace Patrick Swayze.

(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.

IMDB is the Internet Movie Database for film and tv professionals.If you would like to look at my IMDb listing for which another fifteen credits are to be uploaded, (which will probably take several months before they are accepted) please go to: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm3438598/ As I write, the listing is new and brief - however, by the time you read this it might have a dozen or a score of credits...so please do take a look. My son, Ainan Celeste Cawley, also has an IMDb listing. His is found at: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm3305973/ My wife, Syahidah Osman Cawley, has a listing as well. Hers is found at: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm3463926/

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

Do child prodigies get rich?

The question in the title is not my own, but that of a web surfer who came to my blog in search of the answer.

The short answer would be: some do, some don't.

If the child prodigy is a prodigy in a domain that has significant economic value, when allied to good marketing - such as, for instance, music, then, yes, that child prodigy could be become very rich indeed. A case in point is Vanessa Mae, who proclaims herself to have been a child prodigy on her website. She is worth, according to recent estimates a cool 32 million pounds sterling. That is about 100 million Singaporean dollars. Not bad for a girl with a violin.

Another example would be Harry Connick Jr. who was a definite child prodigy musician. His net worth wasn't readily accessible on the internet but is sure to be many millions since he has sold millions of records and appeared in a number of Hollywood films.

Other prodigies tend to enter more academic domains. Such prodigies may not become rich, but will be comfortable in a professional level income sort of way. Their true wealth may come in the form of the influence they have on the world and the fame they acquire for doing so. An example of this class would be Norbert Wiener, a pioneer in cybernetics. He was a child prodigy who became a man of great intellectual influence. His ideas led to fortunes being created in the computing field, if not directly for himself.

Prodigious sportsmen and sportswomen can definitely become very rich. Tiger Woods, for instance, is accounted a prodigy - and is not far from being a dollar billionaire. In 2007, Esquire magazine estimated Tiger's net worth as being in excess of 650 million US dollars. No doubt it has grown since.

Leaving aside the question of why the web searcher wanted to measure child prodigies in terms of net worth and future earnings potential, it can be seen that those who begin life with great gift can become wealthy, if their gifts meet the right opportunities for their expression and development.

Prodigies of the intellectual type, however, tend to become academics of some kind and their wealth is likely to remain on the professorial level - unless they start companies, as some do.

For some prodigies, their period of greatest earning power is actually when they are children. A case of this kind is Macaulay Culkin, whose worth is estimated at 35 million US dollars. Most oddly, from most people's perspective, almost all of this was earned while he was a child. As an adult, he doesn't seem to have much of a career (perhaps he doesn't want one, being wealthy already).

Child prodigies are children of great possibilities - and wealth is certainly one of their potentials - if they are lucky enough to receive the right opportunities.

I hope that answers my searcher's query.

(If you would like to learn more of Ainan Celeste Cawley, a scientific child prodigy, aged eight years and one month, or his gifted brothers, Fintan, four years and seven months, and Tiarnan, two years exactly, 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, gifted adults and gifted children in general. Thanks.)

Of Genius, Wealth and Poverty

We live in a world that worships money - and accords both respect and awe to those able to accumulate vast quantities of this magical stuff. Many, indeed, confuse "wealthy", with "brilliant". Yet, is this conflation a necessary truth?

There are many ways to become wealthy and not all of them involve great brilliance - in fact, most of them involve little more than doing what someone else has done, before, with a better marketing plan in place. I could say, "Look at Microsoft.", but I won't. In short, being rich does not mean being a genius. Nor does its corrollary apply: being poor does not mean one is dumb.

This latter point is essential to grasp. You see, I have recently received a letter from an American pointing out that, in her country, the poor are discounted on the issue of giftedness: no-one believes that a gifted child could emerge from a poor family - and so they are often overlooked. This is a very odd take on the issue of giftedness and shows that those who think so are unaware that wealth and IQ are not strongly correlated. There are rich bright people, yes - but there are also dumb rich people - and poor bright people - and poor dumb people (perhaps not the best combination, that one).

Giftedness is not a measure of wealth - it is a measure of mind - and great minds may emerge in the most unpromising of circumstances. History can teach us much here. I have already written of Carl Friedrich Gauss - a great child prodigy and a great genius level mathematician. What I did not stress enough, perhaps, was that his family were a very poor one. His father was a stone mason - a manual worker - and had the limited resources one expects of manual workers in most societies. Yet, this did not stop the young Gauss from being born a prodigy, and turning out to be the "greatest mathematician of his Age", according to many of his peers.

Another great mathematician, born in poverty, was Srinavasa Ramanujan. Born in 1887 in abject circumstances, he nursed a brilliance for mathematics by his own private efforts. He only emerged into prominence on writing a letter to G.H Hardy, the Cambridge mathematician, enclosing 120 mathematical statements of his own devising. Hardy, rather open-mindedly, invited him to Cambridge and the great young genius, was recognized. We all have something to thank him for. His work (the partition theory) is behind the operations of automatic teller machines (ATMs) and without his ideas, we would not be able to get a hold of our funds, so readily.

Both of these great men, were born poor - and both became great mathematical geniuses. Their poverty did not prevent them from being great. There are many such cases throughout history. Poverty does not connote stupidity - and wealth does not connote genius (I could bore you with cases of stupid, rich people but the living ones would sue and the dead ones are too uninteresting to bother with.)

So, to my American reader, I would like to send assurance that gifted people can, do and have emerged from poor backgrounds - and would like to urge those in America, who seek to identify gifted people, to be more open-minded in their pursuit of them. Do not assume intelligence in a rich kid - or dumbness in a poor one. Have an open mind when evaluating each and every one. For intelligence, creativity and genius, may emerge from any background, rich or poor.

(If you would like to read of Ainan Celeste Cawley, a scientific child prodigy, aged seven years and eight months, or 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, child prodigy, child genius, baby genius, adult genius, savant, the creatively gifted, gifted adults and gifted children in general. Thanks.)

IQ and Wealth: Zagorsky study.

Are IQ and wealth related? Jay Zagorsky of Ohio State University has studied the matter and come up with some surprising conclusions.

In 1979, the National Longitudinal Study of Youth (NSLY) began under the guidance of the Ohio State Center for Human Resource Research - and funded by the National Bureau of Labor Statistics. The 7,403 participants have been repeatedly questioned and studied over the years and the data trawled for interesting correlations.

Zagorsky thought to use the data to answer an interesting question: do you have to be smart to be rich? His answer is rather counter-intuitive.

Firstly, his data confirmed the common view that the smarter you are the more you earn. For every IQ point above 100, his cohort earned between $202 and $616 more per year. This equated to a person of IQ 130 earning between $6,000 to $18,500 a year more than their average counterpart at IQ 100. So were the smart ones wealthier? Did they have greater net worth? Were they freer of financial difficulties?

Rather peculiarly, they weren't. No strong correlation between wealth and intelligence was found. Indeed the smart were more prone to financial imprudence than the ones who were just slightly above average. As a measure of financial difficulties he looked at the failure to pay bills; make credit card payments; max out credit cards or become bankrupt. The smartest ones still got themselves into trouble in these ways. For instance, 11 per cent of people of IQ over 125 had missed credit card payments; 6 per cent had maxed out their cards. Though smart, they were not immune to carelessness with their finances.

So, what was the result of all this? Despite earning less than the most gifted in the cohort, those of average or slightly below average intelligence were as competent at accumulating wealth. Zagorsky's tentative conclusion - which he is investigating further - is that although the bright EARN more, they SAVE less.

What lessons can gifted parents get from this? Well, apart from teaching one's children the value of saving, it might be healthy to alter an expectation that many parents have of their gifted children: that they will be "well-off". This is not necessarily the case at all. It is partly because some of the professions that draw gifted children are not well-remunerated. University Professors, for instance, in most cultures, are not well-paid. Yet, they are among the most gifted of their societies.

(If you would like to read more of Ainan Celeste Cawley, seven years and five months, a scientific child prodigy, and 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, adult genius, baby genius, savant, the creatively gifted, gifted adults and gifted children. Thanks.)