Talk:Autistic savant

message: 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 Autistic Savant is either a subset of Savant Syndrome or an out of date term depending on your point of view. I think we can reference autistic savant as both, and idiot savant as an out of date term.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  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)
thread_title:  Proposal 

message: "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)
thread_title:  comments on error 

message: 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)
thread_title: Error

message: 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)
thread_title: John Nash?

message: 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)
thread_title: Albino from ''[[The Technopriests]]''

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: ''[[Elling]]''

message: 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)
thread_title: [[Kim Peek]]

message: 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)
thread_title: ''[[Stroszek]]''

message: 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)
thread_title: [[Gilles Trehin]]

message: 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)
thread_title: [[Christopher Boone]]

message: 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)
replies: text: I'd reccomend looking into the research of V.S. Ramachandran, and especially Darold Treffert. The latter researcher wrote a book  on savantism which is supposed to be excellent.68.166.144.210 07:05, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: How many are there?

message: 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)
replies: text: 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  tags.  ◄ИΞШSΜΛЯΞ► 16:48, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Naiv. Super. 

message: 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)
thread_title:  redirect idiot savant 

message: 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)
thread_title:  The Real Rain Man? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Forrest Gump 

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

message: 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)
thread_title: Daniel Tammet

message: 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)
thread_title:  savant syndrom 

message: 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)
thread_title: Regalia’s Specialization Theory of Savants

message: 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)
thread_title:  KC 

message: Merted per Talk:Savant syndrome#Merge Autistic savant into Savant syndrome.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:07, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Merged to [[Savant syndrome]]