Talk:Autistic savant

Proposal

Here's a proposal for making this article clearer and (I hope!) reducing some of the controversy:

1. Rename it to Savant Syndrome

Savant Syndrome is the primary topic of the article. Autistic Savant is either a subset of Savant Syndrome or an out of date term depending on your point of view. I think we can reference autistic savant as both, and idiot savant as an out of date term. If I am understanding the rename instructions properly this is a bit of a project in and of itself.

2. Use the U. of Wisconsin site [1] as the primary source.

It's big, it's comprehensive and it's up to date.

3. Include a discussion of splinter skills

People reading the article seem to conclude that any fictional portrayal of low intelligence and some special skill is a portrayal of Savant Syndrome. This suggests to me that the article is not doing a very good job of describing what Savant Syndrome is or the skills of people who have it. A longer discussion of the splinter skills and their common roots should help. Clarify that splinter skills are critical to the definition.

4. Trim the "Famous Autistic Savants" and rename to "Famous people with Savant Syndrome"

Rather than a list of people who may or may not have Savant Syndrome, for each person include the specifics: the handicap and the splinter skills. Remove all entries for which we don't have documentation. It will not only help illustrate the syndrome, it will help with the tendency to add various miscellaneous "odd and very skilled" people to the list. A list of people with Savant Syndrome would include Kim Peek (who is not autistic).

5. Trim the "Fictional Portrayals" to fictional characters with a mental handicap and Savant Syndrome splinter skills

Various fictional "superman" or special mental skills are not portrayals of Savant Syndrome. I am not familiar with everything on the list, but looking around it looks like most entries are reasonable but I would order it from most to least reality based. It's reasonable to make the test for fictional portrayals is weaker than that for real world examples but at some point it gets silly.

--Margaretolson 01:35, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

• on point 1 - the first sentence is screwed up. it basically defines it as being itself.--Torourkeus 03:59, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

comments on error

"Savant" is a person with knowledge. I think you are describing Savant Syndrome, which now that I look I notice is missing for the wikipedia. An austistic savant is an austistic person with Savant Syndrome.

Much of the controversy over this article comes from the mismatch of the entry title and the contents. Perhaps most of the text should be moved to a new article "Savant Syndrome", with this article just a short discussion of Savant Syndrome in autism. Meanwhile I corrected the summary to refer to Savant Syndrome, since that's really what this article is about.

Margaretolson 00:13, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Error

Less than 50% of the savants are autistic. Savant`s differ from the normal person in that certain genes are not expressed properly during neurogenesis or even later on in life, so they lack certain properties of the brain in particular "neural filters" or connections. Savants are a great riddle for all of neurology but it is clear by now - by general concensus - that they are lacking brain functions and not having aditional functionality. It is also clear from an evolutionary perspective that the process of gene epxression in the brain to alter brain function so that new features emerge takes lots of generations rather than one generation in which a whole new functionality can only appear through damage. Rather savants lack certain functions which are masked in healthy individuals and thus give insight into various functions of the brain which would be very hard to study in healthy individuals. One way to study such properties in healthy individuals is via transcranial magentic stimulation, but the technique is everything from sophisticated and very inaccurate - as one can easily imagine by the mere modelling of the magnetic and electric field lines. Perhaps in the future additional conductor materials that are injected and not impacting the health of the individual may help the efficacy of those methods. So please correct this article and incorporate precise state of the art knowledge. Slicky 09:08, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

John Nash?

I would hardly call John Nash a savant. He's a genius and he has a mental disorder, but he's not an autistic savant.

• I agree with that - he had paranoid scizophrenia but he is not an "idiot" in the old terms. He does not fit the category. - Skysmith 08:30, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Nomenclature

Shouldn't this article be merged with idiot savant? --Wik 00:55, Sep 24, 2003 (UTC)

Nope. Ain't the exact Same thing...but a disaumbigation could be made at savant for'em both. And'uh...close the door before ya' go. It's freezin'..err...idiot's are one thing (No useful skills what-so-ever) but Autistics are another (Got practical/technical skills mostly) get it? 'Rat's my DEF, atleast!--OleMurder 21:12, 25 January 2006 (UTC)Insert non-formatted text here

This is called autistic savant now, isn't it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.171.30.210 (talk • contribs) 08:08, 15 January 2004 (UTC)

It is, I'm making the necessary redirects. Cecropia 01:47, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I've moved and edited this page to reflect modern nomenclature. An idiot savant is not the same as a savant, as evidenced by the oxymoronic pairing of the term "idiot" with "savant". A savant is a person with a (usually) high and specialized intellect in a field or fields without regard to other capabilities.

The term "autistic savant" is now used partly to remove the pejorative sense of "idiot" but more in recognition that the disability is seen most often in diagnosed autism. Cecropia 02:09, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Some say only about half the cases are assoc with autism. I'm with Jef Reinten (above). It seems ludicrous to refer to nonautistic people like Kim Peek as autistic savants. Seems to me a choice between "savant syndrome" or "savantism". Maybe "savant" but that does have the broader meaning. Nurg 05:11, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

The term autistic savant is misleading as it suggests that all of these people are autistic. In fact less than half of all savants are autistic. Most scientists working in this area now simply refer to these people as savants or as having savant syndrome. Refer to the further reading that I have added for more information, once I have collected more I will change the heading. Jef Reinten 06:43, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Considering that most people are familiar with the term "idiot savant" (i.e. 5.4 times more prevalant on Google), and more importantly, because the term "autistic savant" is highly misleading and equally offensive (or at least obstructive) to idiot savants who aren't autistic, I suggest we reconsider the title of this article instead of pandering to linguistic revisionism for more "PC" standards. Personally, my vote goes to "savant syndrome", which not only is most often used in medical terminology, but is only about half as prevalant as "autistic savant" on Google and might in fact outstrip it in layman use if it is properly acknowledged. This term is not only up to "modern nomenclature" standards, but is also far more accurate in describing the vast array of people who have the syndrome but aren't necessarily autistic. 66.229.227.145 22:45, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Some of the confusion comes from the history of the term "autistic". Autism as it was defined up until sometime in the 70s or 80s was a severe handicap always associated with severe limitation in some mental skills and most particularly communications skills. Rain Man was a reasonably accurate portrayal of this definition of autism. The current definition is much broader and describes what is frequently a much less severe handicap. The skills of a savant present a very dramatic contrast between the high and the low; quirky smart people are not savants. I would suggest "savant syndrome" to minimize the confusion since people no longer associate the term autism with a very severe mental handicap. Margaretolson 19:19, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

"The skills of a savant present a very dramatic contrast between the high and the low; quirky smart people are not savants. I would suggest "savant syndrome" to minimize the confusion since people no longer associate the term autism with a very severe mental handicap." Amen, edited page accordingly. 76.185.10.76 05:58, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I made minor edits to the definition to match the [autism] page and standard definitions of autistic savant. Margaretolson 01:34, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

The nomenclature is still confusing. I agree that a more appropriate heading may be under 'savant syndrome'. As is noted here, only half of 'idiot savants' are autistic -- and it seems to me that 'autistic savant', 'idiot savant', et al are often used to generally refer to those with extraordinary skills despite great mental handicap.

I think it may have been a bit hasty to restrict the article to say that 'autistic savantism' is exclusively for those with autism -- but this is mainly a problem of the confusing nomenclature. Should there be two different articles, explicity seperating 'autistic savants' from the general 'savant syndrome?' Are they considered distinct phenomenon by the medical community? This seems a little redundant to me -- the most appropriate answer seems to be to have one article under 'savant syndrome' that includes all areas of mental handicap, and have all common nomenclature redirect to it. The fact that autism is commonly associated with the syndrome could be elaborated upon in the new article. Any thoughts? -Herschel 13:57, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I am inclined to agree that there should be one article called Savant Syndrome that mentions autistic savants as a major but not the only category. It did not really occur to me that this article might be covering both subjects, given it's title of "Austistic Savant". I'm a bit new to editing the wikipedia and perhaps don't know what things to check. I'm also having a bit of trouble figuring where in this talk page new comments show up.Margaretolson 01:08, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Qualification for inclusion

I removed the names that do not match standard definitions of autistic savant. Margaretolson 01:34, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Please see my comments above on terminology. A savant is the person who can play Mozart by ear but can't handle a job flipping burgers. If you can find a job that matches the savants skills they can do well, but this never involves interacting with people. Cleaning up and clarifying the terminology will help clean up the inclusion list. The listing of an IT executive on the main page perpetuates misunderstanding. Margaretolson 19:20, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I have noticed that some of the individuals listed in the article are either not autistic and/or not savants. I would appreciate it if others could browse the lists and apply their own knowledge and experience of those listed to confirm the validity of their inclusion, particularly in cases where they're on the autistic spectrum, but savantism is not present. The same applies to the film and literature section. It might also pay to include in this section of the talk page any related edits and the reasoning behind making them, to act as a reference point for potential editors that seek to (re)include these individuals in the future. Thanks. ◄ИΞШSΜΛЯΞ► 12:31, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Where you include film and literature entries relating to autistic savantism, can you append details of why the entry is relevant to the main article instead of listing who wrote or starred in the thing? Those details can be gleaned from following the link, and do not actually add any value to this article. Example:

Mozart and the Whale starring Josh Hartnett and Radha Mitchell

is better listed as

Mozart and the Whale, a film about a taxi driver with a superhuman knack for numbers and his budding romance with a fellow Aspie

Thanks. ◄ИΞШSΜΛЯΞ► 15:27, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Albino from The Technopriests

I'm personally unfamiliar with the character/comic and the 'Technopriests' article does not indicate autistic savantism in the character. I shall ask for clarfication on Talk:The Technopriests. I've tagged the entry as dubious, pending verification. ◄ИΞШSΜΛЯΞ► 15:07, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Being There

Articles I've read on Being There do not indicate autistic savantism. I shall ask for clarfication on Talk:Being There. I've tagged the entry as dubious, pending verification. ◄ИΞШSΜΛЯΞ► 15:07, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Removed due to reply on Talk:Being There. Reinstate only if sources claiming savantism can be provided. ◄ИΞШSΜΛЯΞ► 23:57, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Denny Crane

I'm removing Denny Crane from the list of fictional austistic savants. He's a great lawyer, surely, but his oddities no more fit the definition of autism than they do of mad cow disease. I'm likewise removing K-Pax and the sci-fi entries. Being a lightning calculator does not make one autistic; if the Mentats belong on this list, so does Mr. Spock. Also, the pre-cogs from Minority Report have psychic abilities, not special calculation or musical talents. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fabulous Creature (talk • contribs) 21:58, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Elling

I cannot find reference to autistic savantism in this film's Wikipedia article, nor in imdb's blurb. I shall ask for clarfication on Talk:Elling. I've tagged the entry as dubious, pending verification. ◄ИΞШSΜΛЯΞ► 15:07, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I've seen the movie, and I wouldn't consider him. He is somewhat of an aspiring writer, but there's no signs that his writing is particularly genius, artistic or deep. If anything, he more likely borders on Asperger. The guy he meets at the asylum mainly seems slow-witted. 惑乱 分からん 20:49, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Niccolo Paganini

I was surprised when I saw Niccolo Paganini on the list of famous autistic savants. I know that he was brilliant and highly skilled, but had no idea that he was retarded in other areas or autistic. The wiki for Paganini also has no mention of it. If the list is just people with inhuman high levels of skill, why not include the more famous Mozart, Bach, etc? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.93.202.151 (talk • contribs) 04:40, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Kim Peek

The Wikipedia article, as well as scanty but reliable sources on the internet, state that Peek is not autistic. I think it's of the utmost importance then, to dispel of this conception, if it is in fact false. After all, isn't veracity one of the things people rely on Wikipedia for? 66.229.227.145 22:26, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Stroszek

Removed Strosze from References in Movie and literature. Stroszek is by no means an autistic savant, and the film does not touch the subject in any other way. Also, John Nash in "A Beautiful Mind" is an extremely gifted schizophrenic. But is he an autistic savant? I dont think so. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.80.117.224 (talk • contribs) 03:01, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Skysmith re-added Stroszek, but I too cannot find anything mentioning savantism in relation to this movie. Consider it removed again until a verifiable source is provided. ◄ИΞШSΜΛЯΞ► 15:07, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Gilles Trehin

Gilles Trehin seems to qualify to be on the list and has some fascinating abilities but attempts to add the entry have been speedily deleted. I'm not sure what people think but there is discussion on this over on the proposed entry's talk page if people are interested. (Emperor 03:08, 4 April 2006 (UTC))

• I wold agree but my original version was deleted some time ago. - Skysmith 08:56, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Christopher Boone

Media and Literature - Christopher Boone, main character in The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time. The character is a youth with Asperger Syndrome and is gifted in mathematics but not extraordinarily so. It's a wonderful book but it is misleading to suggest it as a major Savant Syndrome M&L reference. It should be removed. Wawrom 10:47, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Mathematical savants

Who were some mathematical savants? I doubt their existence and I suspect that the author of these words was confused, thinking that an ability to calculate constitutes ingenuity in mathematics. Michael Hardy 01:54, 13 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Blaise Pascal. AllStarZ 20:28, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I have removed nonsense to the effect that some of these people work in mathematics. Numerical calculation is not at all the same as mathematics. Lest anyone think I'm talking about sophisticated mathematics understood only by professionals, I hasten to add that I am not. Consider the Pythagorean theorem, a statement known to all 15-year-olds (Except, perhaps, in the USA and among some isolated xenophobic tribes of cannibals). If one discovers a new proof of that theorem, one has done a bit of elementary mathematics. If one relies on the theorem to know which numerical calculations need to be done to solve a problem, then the person to whom one entrusts the details of the calculation need not understand the mathematics. This is not to say that calculating prodigies do not understand any of the mathematics that justifies their calculations; rather, it means that the field in which they are prodigies is numerical calculation; they are not discovering any new mathematics. This error is another instance of the fact that most educated lay persons do not suspect that such a field as mathematics exists. For example, a professor of medicine once asked me whether graduate students in mathematics must discover new things in mathematics in order to earn a PhD. Of course, as in other fields, the answer is "yes", but this professor went on to say, "Isn't all of mathematics already known?" In fact, hundreds of scholarly journals are devoted primarily to the incessant publication of new discoveries in mathematics -- not something that those autistic savants do, contrary to the statement I've just corrected on this page. Notice the strange negative way in which the medical doctor phrased the question: instead of saying "Is everything already known?" she said "Isn't everything already known?" It seems as if people use that negative form only when their talking about an assumption they've made without thinking about it. I question any assertion that those autistic savants to who someone said may be working "in the field of mathematics" have made novel discoveries suitable for publication in the aforementioned journals. And no one replied here on this talk page, for months. That is why, being reminded on my own discussion page that I had written that query, I came back to this page today and altered it. Michael Hardy 22:38, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

In the USA, eh? I suppose we are too busy being the most prosperous sovereign nation in the world to worry about such things as the Pythagorean theorem. However, your sour grapes are duly acknowledged.

The definition of mathematics is performing calculations with numbers, so numerical calculation is the same thing as mathematics. And the vast majority of those with autism and savantism are geniuses in the area of mathematics, not other areas. --NikolaiLobachevsky 15:32, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Michael Hardy here. They may be good with calculations, but are they able to do any kind of analysis or free thinking? Can they understand or do any calculus? Have any mathematical savants made any new discoveries, or prove any theorems? Can they understand enough mathematics to get a PhD? From what I've seen and heard it seems they can not. I would like to see a savant solve any of the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Prize_Problems. If you hang around the math department at school you probably have met a lot of weird people and may even consider them autistic(joke). --zeki893 10:26(PST), 2007 Nov 16

How well can they calculate?

I'm curious as to the extent at which an autistic savant with calculating skills can calculate -- both for an "average" savant with this skill (insofar as much as there can be such a thing as an average savant ;)) and for somebody who is particularly adept at calculation. For instance, in Rain Man, Raymond is shown calculating the square root of a randomly-chosen number (presumably with an irrational result; I haven't checked) accurately to a good number of decimal places. That seems outrageous to me, as if it were just fictional drama that couldn't really happen, but has it actually been done?--Furrykef 01:56, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I can't give you the kind of documentary evidence you're probably seeking (though I'm sure there's literature on the web) but there are stories of actual autistic savants who could calculate quite a few primes, or give a day of the week for any date in the past, correcting for leap years and the switch from the Gregorian calendar. Most of these stories deal with an area of specialization, as opposed to all-around calculating genius. I would not be at all surprised if a Rain Man could calculate square roots with precision. I can even envision how it could be done, though I certainly couldn't do it.

I should remark, though, that autistic savants are a tiny, tiny, fraction of the autistic community, but there are quite a few autistics who are able to impressively excell in various intellectual pursuits, especially when they are able to use visualization to understand the problem. Temple Grandin has become an expert in humane treatment of food animals by being able to visualize the animals' fears. This is qualitatively different from the more typical scientific method, which might make decisions based on strictly human testing and observation.--Cecropia | explains it all ® 02:14, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Right, I understand all that, I'm just thinking the information would be good to have when somebody who knows or bothers to look it up comes along. Calculating primes or giving the day of the week for a date in the past is pretty darn impressive, but it doesn't seem to be something that the layman would relate to as easily -- primes don't mean much to most people and quickly calculating dates to that precision doesn't sound as impressive as it is. People can relate to a square root, though, because they know what it is and they know that doing one of a randomly-chosen number (with that precision) in your head is pretty impossible for the normal person no matter how smart they are. Of course this is only my opinion, but in any case I think it's good information to have here. :) - Furrykef 15:07, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Well. Firstly as a computer programmer, I don't really see a distinction in required skill set between being able to verify a number is prime and take a square root. They both involve the same type of basic calculation skills. Furthermore, I think that you overestimate the difficulty of taking a square root. Prime factoring is actually a harder problem, quantatatively. If you have a good memory and you can subtract in your head pretty well, you can convert a number into binary or hex pretty quickly and then take its square root pretty fast too. Personally, I can't do it because I suck at mental arithmetic, but I don't at all doubt that someone who had significantly elevated abilities in numerical calculation would be able to. And indeed, its one of the challenges of the Mental calculation world cup. Of course, this article, and all those I've read, come rather short on actual timings for these feats. I wonder, do these people calculate significantly faster than someone would be able to on paper? Obviously, anyone who can factor a six-digit prime in a few minutes can... But taking a square root of a six-digit number would be child's play by comparison. - The Ostrich 23:24, 29 Apr 2006 (GMT)

Calendar calculations aren't all that hard if you are very good at mental arithmetic and have an extremely good memory. The same is true for the other calculation tricks mentioned above. Some autistic people (my brother, for example) can do most of this. Whether or not they will do it for you on request is another question. I am also a programmer, I personally am not at all good at mental arithmetic (too much of the arithmetic required in my childhood homework assignments was solved by "Matt what is...?"). He can calculate considerably faster than I can on paper and in less time than it takes to pull out the calculator and punch in the numbers. Savant is a hard test, and this article does not reflect this. I will wait a few weeks for more comments before rewriting it. Margaretolson 19:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

How many are there?

With their highly noticible talents, I'm assuming someone has conducted research into how many idiot/autistic savants there are in at least one country (giving an average ratio), if there are any theories as to their sudden appearance, and (via scanning methods) how their brains operate so differently. This is all highly-relevant information that needs to be in this entry - I would research it myself but my only source is the internet, and I specialise in computing and internet phenomena. AKismet 02:27, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I'd reccomend looking into the research of V.S. Ramachandran, and especially Darold Treffert. The latter researcher wrote a book [2] on savantism which is supposed to be excellent.68.166.144.210 07:05, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

POV

This article has to be revised at the very least, the following: " Other autistic savant skills include:

• precisely estimating distances by sight
• calculating the day of the week for any given date over the span of tens of thousands of years
• perfect perception of passing time without a clock

"This has to be extended and generalized, with the key point written down. the second is okay at best in an example: e.g. calculating the day....bla bla

regards and good luckSlicky 14:22, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure I understand how extending and generalising the list, not that it could be much more general, will make it any more NPOV. In fact, I'm not even sure why you think this doesn't conform to the neutral point of view policy. These are some of the abilities associated with some autistic savants. Yes, they can be performed to some degree by trained neurotypicals, but nowhere does the article claim exclusivity for savants. Sorry, I'm really grasping at straws here to understand the addition of {{POV}} tags. ◄ИΞШSΜΛЯΞ► 16:48, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Asperger's

People with Asperger's syndrome are recognized in studies to have average or above IQ - the concept of an "idiot" savant, a person with an extraordinary skill with otherwise subpar intellect, doesn't relate to this. Can anyone show me studies where Asperger's people have these abilities? (edit - SZadeh 09:35, 1 June 2006 (UTC))

Largely, they don't. From http://www.autism.org/savant.html : "The estimated prevalence of savant abilities in autism is 10%, whereas the prevalence in the non-autistic population, including those with mental retardation, is less than 1%." Margaretolson 01:05, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

In fact, as normal or better than normal cognitive abilities are considered by many to be a prerequisite to the diagnosis, it is rather demeaning to continue to use the archaic term "idiot savant", as "idiot" has a rather precise meaning regarding less-than-normal cognitive abilities.

Zuiram 21:52, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Who on earth is many? From the article-

Savant Syndrome is described as having both a **severe developmental or mental handicap** and extraordinary mental abilities not found in most people. Notice that it says severe handicap. You're not going to find anyone diagnosing people with average or above average intellect with this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.185.10.76 (talk) 01:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC).

Hello,

Daniel Tammet is a Prodigious Savant with Asperger’s Syndrome. He can calendar calculate, perform eidetic memory feats and learn a new language in a week.

Link to documentary with him as the subject: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2598363071375453449&q=Savant+Syndrome&hl=en

He has also made appearances on multiple American television shows.

Wm

Naiv. Super.

I consider the protagonist of Naiv. Super, a book by Erlend Loe, to be autistic, mainly because of his extreme rationality and his high systemising abilities, as well as his interest in science and the way in which he relaxes by certain repetetive behaviour. JUST READ THE BOOK! Gerrit ^CUTEDH 10:14, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree. Loe shows the hints of authism you`ll find in a regular young man's psychological buildup. The protagonist rather devotes himself to a authistic-like state of mind in order to cope with the pressure of filling an identity. If anything, the book blurs the line between authism and "normality."

redirect idiot savant

autistic are not idiots.they are autistic how are idiots,but you can't tell the auther way around.This article should refer to savant syndrom or something.idiot savant are peopol with extraordinary skyls on one area,that contraste charply with ther very low IQ.

It's a historical reference. According to the sources, the *Autistic savants* (not all people w/ Autism are savants) typically have low I.Q.s with extraordinary skills in an area. So it's not exactly incorrect. Also, I changed the "not always associated with autism" because the description is, shock, autistic savant. SZadeh 19:34, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

The Real Rain Man?

In the page it says...

• Peter Guthrie, autistic savant with calendar and sports trivia skills, behavioral basis for Dustin Hoffman's character in the film "Rain Man"

BUT in the page about Kim_Peek it says that HE is the basis for the rain man character. Can someone clear this up?

Yeah it says it was Kim Peek on the Rain Man page, the Kim Peek page and i think the simpsons page [$pringfield]] Bitbitz.xx 08:08, 8 December 2006 (UTC) =)

I believe Dustin Hoffman studied a variety of well known Savant Syndrome individuals as preparation for the film and that the role was an amalgam of them. Kim Peek was possibly the most influential savant but it would be incorrect to imply that the film was entirely based on him.

I am not an expert here, but Peter Guthrie went to Zama American High School , located outside of Tokyo, Japan - -where I also went and graduated -- at a Zama High reunion, right after RainMan -- I sat next to Peter during dinner and I was AMAZED at Dustin Hoffman - how he copied Peter EXACTLY - in speech, physical motion, inflection, etc. I was impressed for with Dustin's acting for, i guess the first time --- always knew he was good - but sitting next to peter - you could not tell the difference between him and dustin hoffman's character - at all. it was spooky uncanny. I guess he studied others, but he nailed Peter. Wawrom 10:37, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Forrest Gump

In the "Movies and literature" section, Forrest Gump has been added and removed several times -- it seems that there is some disagreement as to whether he could qualify as an example for this article. It would be nice if some agreement could be reached as to if he should be included or not.

Personally, I think that he fulfills the criteria given by the article. Although not explicity stated that he is autistic, he has low I.Q., is borderline retarded, and exhibits extraordinary skills in many areas. I would think that he is one of the most notable uses of the 'idiot genius' archetype in film and literature. What do other people think? -Herschel 13:41, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Savant Syndrome and Austistic Savant are reasonably precisely defined and describe a set of characteristics that occur in real people. Forrest Gump may be a low IQ character who exhibits extraordinary skills, but his is a completely fictional character. Unlike "Rain Man" there aren't (to my knowledge) real people with Forrest Gump's mental skills mix. Or if there are, they don't have Savant Syndrome they have something else.

My suspicion is that if we can write a clear and accurate definition (and I agree my tweaks could use more work) this article could be much less controversial Margaretolson 01:18, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Silly Redirect

Is it just me, or is the Savant Syndrome link in the first paragraph, which redirects to this very article, completely silly and ridiculous to have?

Probate

What is it? ffm ^yes? 17:41, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Daniel Tammet

I didn't read this whole talk page I admit. But I read the article and it says "Daniel Tammet, UK. synesthete first recorded savant to have no easily recognizable autism" I looked at the Daniel Tammet page and the first sentence seems to debunk that he has no autism as well as indicating he has many more abilities than 'just' being a synesthete. So basically the description of Tammet in the Autistic savant article seems wrong to me. What do y'all think though? Scratchdawg 15:54, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

________________________________________

Hello,

By definition, Daniel Tammet is autistic, just very high functioning (Asperger’s Syndrome). Many of the downfalls and benefits of higher functioning Autism are still present; however the negative traits are much less severe than with many individuals with Savant Syndrome.

Wm

savant syndrom

im fairly certain 'savant syndrom' doesnt even exist, as being 'savant' is not (per se) a handicap, but actually means brilliance in a certain area. also "autistic savant" is not the same as "idiot savant", as the first is, apart from being 'savant' also autistic, and the second also an idiot. most often that goes together, but not allways· Lygophile has spoken 00:59, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Regalia’s Specialization Theory of Savants

The Specialization Theory of Savants is the theory in which savants whom lack many every-day common abilities, such as counting up to ten or knowing left from right, but it is the lacking of those abilities which allows savants to focus the cognitive process. The cognitive processes of the brain are usually divided into their respective dedicated functions, where as savants can specialize, or centralize, their cognitive processes toward a certain function, such as playing a musical instrument. For the average man, the relative cognitive process is the sum of the brain's ability to manage daily life. For example, as you read this article your cognitive process is divided into the following: reading, comprehending, listening to background, being aware of your area, generating a thought process on how to react to this article, seeing, being aware of smells, wondering about daily tasks, etc. As for a savant, their brain has been wired to function differently. Instead of focusing on numerous cognitive tasks at once, they are able to specialize their cognitive processes to the task at hand. This is very similar to the effects of a person losing their sight. When a person loses their site the cognitive function that was once split between the eyes and the ears, specializes in order to compensate for the loss of vision. It is a well-known fact when people lose their vision or are born blind, they often times report of "seeing with their ears." This ability to hear better is an adaptation the brain makes to the relative cognitive processes, essentially "rewiring" itself due to the surplus of cognitive ability and the need desire of the human to compensate in order to live a normal life. Savants, on the other hand, lack this desire, and possibly ability, to divide evenly their cognitive processes. This gives reason to why many savants have trouble with normal tasks but are capable of extraordinary tasks. The reasoning for the specialization of the cognitive process is still unknown, although there are many possible explanations. The Specialization Theory of Savants indicates that savants lack the ability to shift their cognitive abilities and processes at their own desire and in a timely manner, which most people have the ability to accomplish. The result is frustration and withdrawal, which furthers the inability. Lacking the ability of dividing, or focusing, the cognitive processes results in a struggle to accomplish tasks and learn, which indeed is at their disposal. In order to learn a new task, savants must dedicate a considerable amount of time to that task, which usually is extremely frustrating. Due to the frustration and the amount of time necessary for the cognitive process to specialize, savants tend to withdrawal from the process. There is an exception though. Often savants will finds something that doesn’t feel like an arduous task, where in actuality the task can be very difficult for most people to learn. Although the task or activity can be very difficult to learn for most people, it appears that it is the enjoyment of the activity or task (often the task is enjoyed because it is enjoyable and is not frustrating to the savant) that is new for the savant. Often savants have much difficulty with everyday tasks and it is when a task or activity produces, for an unknown reason, little or no frustration. When this task is found, savants begin to focus their time on the new task, which after time, leads to the specializing of the cognitive process. Once the cognitive process begins to specialize on this new task, the ease, or enjoyment, is marked by the cognitive process first slowly shifting. Then, with the decrease in frustration of the savant the specialization process accelerates, which is often characterized by a near “obsession” of the task. Once the savant becomes “obsessed” with the task, the cognitive specialization begins to progress rapidly. Instead of the cognitive process specializing slowly and with much practice, as with most people, savants begin to focus the majority of their cognitive ability on this one task, giving reason to the apparent obsession with the task. As for most people, the specialization of the cognitive process is slow, which is due to the various tasks the cognitive abilities attend. Having a divided cognitive process results in conflicting cognitive processes during the day and through the duration of tasks. This confliction between cognitive processes is due to the countless distractions, thoughts, smells, etc., which divert cognitive processing power away from the task at hand and refocuses on the interruption. “Distractors” are not always characterized by a complete interruption in the cognitive process. Instead, “distractors” can require a range of cognitive processing ability, ranging from very minute and almost unnoticeable, such as a breeze moving a few hairs on your head. Distractors can also interrupt the entire process of the task at hand, such as a person slapping you in the back of the head, in which the cognitive processes focus on discerning the prior events. Distractors and the division of cognition disallows for the uninterrupted thought process savants experience. When the cognitive process dedicated to one task is interrupted by another, or even shared with another, it takes away from the ability of the brain to comprehend and learn, as savants are capable. For, if there are two processes working at once and only one individual to focus on both processes, it leads to a slowed process overall. However, for the average person, there are far more than two cognitive processes in action at once, possibly hundreds at once. The theory suggests the specialization of cognitive process common to savants, allows for the brain to be completely “in tune” with that process, devoting almost every sense and region of the brain to the thought process involved in completing the task at hand. Allowing for complete devotion leads to the uninterrupted cognitive process, enabling the learning process to excel very rapidly and surpassing the highest expectations of most individuals. Adamregalia8 08:40, 15 August 2007 (UTC)Adam Regalia

• I've removed this section (again) because it appears to be original research. I can find no independent sources on the web, nor any references to Adam Regalia. andy 09:13, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Temple Grandin an autistic savant? I read one of her books, and that description of her seems totally off, baffling. Why is she included here? Ladarzak 20:24, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

KC

In the introduction it is stated "Savant Syndrome is sometimes abbreviated as "savantism" or "KC" ... ". Nowhere else in the article do these two characters occur together, nor does a quick websearch indicate a closer connection to savantism than non-zero coincidence with references to Kansas City and people named e.g. Karl Christopher. Before assuming that someone inserted the reference to "KC" as a personal attack on an acquaintance, would somebody more familiar with the topic please confirm that there is no basis for the purported term? Eldereft 19:19, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Merged to Savant syndrome

Merted per Talk:Savant syndrome#Merge Autistic savant into Savant syndrome. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:07, 7 May 2008 (UTC)