Amazing People - scientific riddles (Mar/25/2009 )
Savant and talent aren't the same. Savant has a narrow skill or skills, talents (geniuses?) like Andersen or Einstein are brilliant in a wide area. Writing is several skills at once plus wide knowledge. People you mentioned, casandra, aren't savants, but the reverse - they suck at narrow skills, while overall brilliant.
-Telomerase-
hobglobin on Mar 30 2009, 08:14 PM said:
Nabi on Mar 30 2009, 07:35 PM said:
pito on Mar 28 2009, 05:43 AM said:
If I am not mistaken, then there are about 30 documented reports of savants like that.
(kim peek the most famous one==> google him and be astonished, he is also the one who inspired the makers of rainman)
(kim peek the most famous one==> google him and be astonished, he is also the one who inspired the makers of rainman)
Now, I have to any how watch this movie ASAP!
But the lists of assumed to be having a savant/Asperger syndrome is almost endless, from H.C. Andersen over Einstein up to Andy Warhol....
And here is a test if you are member of the list...
No they are not.
The people you and casandra refer to are very smart people, they are genuis, but not a savant like example Kim Peek.
The huge difference is that the people you list are able to live a "normal" life and are "normal", the savants are always a bit "abnormal". Im not a psychologist, so I cant really explain it correctly, but there is a way to find out if someone is such a savant, and according to that deffition the people you gave are not savants.
One of the most important differences between savants and very smart people is that savants do not "link" info: they just memorize it and repeat it, but they dont see the whole picture.
Thats what genuises do: they link , they think, they build new hypotheses etc... a savant will not do that.
A savant can often memorise a whole telephone guide but will maybe not be able to look someone up without any help....
adn yeah, Nabi, you should see the movie the rainman! Great movie.
If I have some time left , I'll post some other movies about savants here, but if you just google Kim Peek, you will find some amazing movies about him , 1in particular is very very amazing: it shows Kim at some prestige university (I think oxford) and the students and profs are allowed to ask him any question and he answers it...
Another great fact about Kim: he can read a book like no one else: his left eye reads the left page and his right eye reads the right page simultaneously!!!! (==> a genuis can not do this, because they do not read a word for a word, they see the context, the whole...)
And every word he reads, he remembers it...( about 90% in total of the more than 10000 books he did read he remembers...)
PS. you might wanne check Daniel Paul Tammet too..... he is great with numbers...
(Kim Peek is the only known savant that is good in everything... most savants are good in 1 thing, Kim Peek is good in almost everything)
-pito-
pito on Mar 31 2009, 11:47 AM said:
hobglobin on Mar 30 2009, 08:14 PM said:
Nabi on Mar 30 2009, 07:35 PM said:
pito on Mar 28 2009, 05:43 AM said:
If I am not mistaken, then there are about 30 documented reports of savants like that.
(kim peek the most famous one==> google him and be astonished, he is also the one who inspired the makers of rainman)
(kim peek the most famous one==> google him and be astonished, he is also the one who inspired the makers of rainman)
Now, I have to any how watch this movie ASAP!
But the lists of assumed to be having a savant/Asperger syndrome is almost endless, from H.C. Andersen over Einstein up to Andy Warhol....
And here is a test if you are member of the list...
No they are not.
The people you and casandra refer to are very smart people, they are genuis, but not a savant like example Kim Peek.
The huge difference is that the people you list are able to live a "normal" life and are "normal", the savants are always a bit "abnormal". Im not a psychologist, so I cant really explain it correctly, but there is a way to find out if someone is such a savant, and according to that deffition the people you gave are not savants.
One of the most important differences between savants and very smart people is that savants do not "link" info: they just memorize it and repeat it, but they dont see the whole picture.
Thats what genuises do: they link , they think, they build new hypotheses etc... a savant will not do that.
A savant can often memorise a whole telephone guide but will maybe not be able to look someone up without any help....
adn yeah, Nabi, you should see the movie the rainman! Great movie.
If I have some time left , I'll post some other movies about savants here, but if you just google Kim Peek, you will find some amazing movies about him , 1in particular is very very amazing: it shows Kim at some prestige university (I think oxford) and the students and profs are allowed to ask him any question and he answers it...
Another great fact about Kim: he can read a book like no one else: his left eye reads the left page and his right eye reads the right page simultaneously!!!! (==> a genuis can not do this, because they do not read a word for a word, they see the context, the whole...)
And every word he reads, he remembers it...( about 90% in total of the more than 10000 books he did read he remembers...)
Actually it was my fault, I mixed up savantism and autism (though isn't Asberger syndrome a form of autism?). Anyway sorry for that.
I was referring to this list. And this list consists of people who are assumed to be affected by this syndrome, as I mentioned before. Almost all of them lived before this type of syndrome (autism/Asberger) was known and therefore it was not possible to diagnose it. I.e. it is a historical/biographical speculation. Perhaps I should have made it clearer before.
-hobglobin-
Actually it was my fault, I mixed up savantism and autism (though isn't Asberger syndrome a form of autism?). Anyway sorry for that.
I was referring to this list. And this list consists of people who are assumed to be affected by this syndrome, as I mentioned before. Almost all of them lived before this type of syndrome (autism/Asberger) was known and therefore it was not possible to diagnose it. I.e. it is a historical/biographical speculation. Perhaps I should have made it clearer before.
I was referring to this list. And this list consists of people who are assumed to be affected by this syndrome, as I mentioned before. Almost all of them lived before this type of syndrome (autism/Asberger) was known and therefore it was not possible to diagnose it. I.e. it is a historical/biographical speculation. Perhaps I should have made it clearer before.
Ah I see,
but still: we all have a form of autism, but not all the same way.
A real autist will not be able to function normal , while lighter form of autism is no problem.. I cant really imagine that people like Einstein were real autists.
An other thing I always wonder about is the following:
Sometimes they define autism as a sort of "living in your own world" syndrom, but arent all great minds like this?
I mean: if you are an expert on your domain, then most of the times there is no one else to chat with.. or you are so bussy with your job, so focussed on it that you create a sort of autism or personal world where you live in....
Well like said I am not a psychologist, but I find the whole savant issue very intersting and it does make me wonder about how "smart" people really can be ===> everyone can be a savant, the only difference is a small difference in the brains that causes the savantism.. and it is even possible to train on it...
The thing is: we all store information and never forget it, but only savants can refind the info because they dont link it and dont make a whole out of it nor they make a difference between important and less important... normal people do this and thats why they cant refind the info they stored in the brain.
-pito-
pito on Mar 31 2009, 11:18 AM said:
but still: we all have a form of autism, but not all the same way.
A real autist will not be able to function normal , while lighter form of autism is no problem.. I cant really imagine that people like Einstein were real autists.
An other thing I always wonder about is the following:
Sometimes they define autism as a sort of "living in your own world" syndrom, but arent all great minds like this?
...Well like said I am not a psychologist
A real autist will not be able to function normal , while lighter form of autism is no problem.. I cant really imagine that people like Einstein were real autists.
An other thing I always wonder about is the following:
Sometimes they define autism as a sort of "living in your own world" syndrom, but arent all great minds like this?
...Well like said I am not a psychologist
You're being quite offensive.
We don't all have a form of autism. Autistic spectrum conditions are a spectrum of conditions and we are all on the spectrum but that's not the same as saying that we are all autistic. To make a comparison, sexuality is also on a spectrum but would say that everyone is homosexual?
-Astilius-
Astilius on Mar 31 2009, 12:52 PM said:
pito on Mar 31 2009, 11:18 AM said:
but still: we all have a form of autism, but not all the same way.
A real autist will not be able to function normal , while lighter form of autism is no problem.. I cant really imagine that people like Einstein were real autists.
An other thing I always wonder about is the following:
Sometimes they define autism as a sort of "living in your own world" syndrom, but arent all great minds like this?
...Well like said I am not a psychologist
A real autist will not be able to function normal , while lighter form of autism is no problem.. I cant really imagine that people like Einstein were real autists.
An other thing I always wonder about is the following:
Sometimes they define autism as a sort of "living in your own world" syndrom, but arent all great minds like this?
...Well like said I am not a psychologist
You're being quite offensive.
We don't all have a form of autism. Autistic spectrum conditions are a spectrum of conditions and we are all on the spectrum but that's not the same as saying that we are all autistic. To make a comparison, sexuality is also on a spectrum but would say that everyone is homosexual?
I have no intentions to be offensive or to irritate someone, maybe it is writen wrong or interpretated wrong (do not forget that english is not my native langauge). I do not know to what you are refering? to the fact that I mentioned "real autism" ? and what it so bad about that? or the fact that I stated that we are all a bit autistic?
If you do feel attacked or.. then let me know, I can change the text or explain what I ment.
Anyway by real autist I mean someone who is severely autistic and not able to function without help.
And yes, we are all autistic. Every person has a bit of autism in his (according do some experts, other may disagree).
The main problem is also how the define autism, when do we call someone autistic? There is still no general theory that is accepted by every specialist.
Some people have a habit of eating fish every friday... when they arent able to eat fish due to some reason, they feel bad... is this a form of autism or just a habbit that had been broken?
Or what about daydreaming, escaping in our own world as a child? (some define this as a form of autism too..especially when you do not seem to have real friends and do not seem to care about it... but cant this simply be a characteristic of that child, person?)
Its not always easy to know what autism is and who has it and then we have not even started to discuss the forms there are...
Anyway, I am just giving my view on the matter , based on things I saw, learned by reading etc...and I have absolutely no intenions to offense someone.
PS.
To make a comparison, sexuality is also on a spectrum but would say that everyone is homosexual?
I find this an intersting quote: newer insight on the sexuality makes experts believe that everyone is homosexual... we are all bisexual according to new insights on the sexual behaviour. Only in some people its more prone that in others.
But this is offcourse a theory, new research has to be done.
-pito-
Yes, we all might be having one or more of them to certain extent.
Look here : http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7967851.stm
-Nabi-
Nabi is quite right, overdiagnosis is a common issue now, to the point of ridicule. Sometimes the old terms are more appropriate. Sometimes it's not depression, it's sadness; it's not ADD, it's dreaminess; it's not Asperger's, it's being eccentric or shy. A bunch of people who really have problems with themselves will suffer because of diagnosis devaluation. We can't go that much overboard, fixing all our feelings and faults that make us human. Nobody's perfect ;>
-Telomerase-
Telomerase on Mar 31 2009, 03:07 PM said:
Nabi is quite right, overdiagnosis is a common issue now, to the point of ridicule. Sometimes the old terms are more appropriate. Sometimes it's not depression, it's sadness; it's not ADD, it's dreaminess; it's not Asperger's, it's being eccentric or shy. A bunch of people who really have problems with themselves will suffer because of diagnosis devaluation. We can't go that much overboard, fixing all our feelings and faults that make us human. Nobody's perfect ;>
True.
ADHD is a well known example: all of a sudden every child has it...
But the problem is most of the times: where to draw the line.
-pito-
pito on Mar 31 2009, 03:28 PM said:
Telomerase on Mar 31 2009, 03:07 PM said:
Nabi is quite right, overdiagnosis is a common issue now, to the point of ridicule. Sometimes the old terms are more appropriate. Sometimes it's not depression, it's sadness; it's not ADD, it's dreaminess; it's not Asperger's, it's being eccentric or shy. A bunch of people who really have problems with themselves will suffer because of diagnosis devaluation. We can't go that much overboard, fixing all our feelings and faults that make us human. Nobody's perfect ;>
True.
ADHD is a well known example: all of a sudden every child has it...
But the problem is most of the times: where to draw the line.
It's also a political topic For example female hysteria was long time a only-women disease and even used to marginalize and sanction political/social active (or for this time revolutionary or non-conformist) women. Now it's an almost forgotten diagnosis...
And today it's an economic topic, as for every new "invented" disease expensive medicine can be sold. ADHD is a good example, and Ritalin (Methylphenidate) the pseudo-solution.
-hobglobin-